Equal patient satisfaction, quality of life and objective recurrence rate after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair with and without mesh

Patients report significant improvement in quality of life following hiatal hernia repair-despite recurrence

BACKGROUND

Hiatal hernia (HH) repairs have been associated with high recurrence rates. This study aimed to investigate if changes in patient's self-reported GERD health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores over time are associated with long-term surgical outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective chart reviews were conducted on all patients who had laparoscopic or robotic HH repairs between 2018 and 2022 at a tertiary care center. Information was collected regarding initial BMI, endoscopic HH measurement, surgery, and pre- and post-operative HRQL scores. Repeat imaging at least a year following surgical repair was then evaluated for any evidence of recurrence. Paired t tests were used to compare pre- and post-operative HRQL scores. Wilcoxon ranked-sum tests were used to compare the HRQL scores between the recurrence cohort and non-recurrence cohorts at different time points.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients underwent HH repairs and had pre- and post-operative HRQL scores. Mesh was used in 23 repairs (18.25%). 42 patients had recorded HH recurrences (33.3%), 35 had no evidence of recurrence (27.7%), and 49 patients (38.9%) had no follow-up imaging. The average pre-operative QOL score was 24.99 (SD ± 14.95) and significantly improved to 5.63 (SD ± 8.51) at 2-week post-op (p < 0.0001). That improvement was sustained at 1-year post-op (mean 7.86, SD ± 8.26, p < 0.0001). The average time between the initial operation and recurrence was 2.1 years (SD ± 1.10). Recurrence was significantly less likely with mesh repairs (p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in QOL scores at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year postoperatively between the cohorts (p = NS).

CONCLUSION

Patients had significant long-term improvement in their HRQL scores after surgical HH repair despite recurrences. The need to re-intervene in patients with HH recurrence should be based on their QOL scores and not necessarily based on established recurrence.

Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The surgical management of hiatal hernia remains controversial. We aimed to compare outcomes of mesh versus no mesh and fundoplication versus no fundoplication in symptomatic patients; surgery versus observation in asymptomatic patients; and redo hernia repair versus conversion to Roux-en-Y reconstruction in recurrent hiatal hernia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2000 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series (asymptomatic and recurrent hernias). Screening was performed by two trained independent reviewers. Pooled analyses were performed on comparative data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 45 studies from 5152 retrieved records. Only six RCTs had low risk of bias. Mesh was associated with a lower recurrence risk (RR = 0.50, 95%CI 0.28, 0.88; I2 = 57%) in observational studies but not RCTs (RR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.47, 2.02; I2 = 34%), and higher total early dysphagia based on five observational studies (RR = 1.44, 95%CI 1.10, 1.89; I2 = 40%) but was not statistically significant in RCTs (RR = 3.00, 95%CI 0.64, 14.16). There was no difference in complications, reintervention, heartburn, reflux, or quality of life. There were no appropriate studies comparing surgery to observation in asymptomatic patients. Fundoplication resulted in higher early dysphagia in both observational studies and RCTs ([RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.16, 3.76] and [RR = 20.58, 95%CI 1.34, 316.69]) but lower reflux in RCTs (RR = 0.31, 95%CI 0.17, 0.56, I2 = 0%). Conversion to Roux-en-Y was associated with a lower reintervention risk after 30 days compared to redo surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for optimal management of symptomatic and recurrent hiatal hernia remains controversial, underpinned by studies with a high risk of bias. Shared decision making between surgeon and patient is essential for optimal outcomes.

Laparoscopic large hiatus hernia repair with mesh reinforcement versus suture cruroplasty alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the difference in outcomes in laparoscopic large hiatus hernia (LHH) repair using suture-based and mesh-based repair techniques.

METHODS

A systematic search of articles was conducted in PubMed, Medline and Embase using the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing recurrences and reoperations in those patients with large hiatal hernia repair (> 30% stomach in the chest, > 5 cm hiatal defect, hiatal surface area > 10 cm²) who had mesh vs no mesh were assessed quantitatively. The impact of mesh on significant intraoperative/postoperative surgical complications was qualitatively assessed.

RESULTS

Pooled data included six randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational studies with 1670 patients (824 with no mesh, 846 with mesh). There was a significant reduction in the total recurrence rate with mesh (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.80, p = 0.007). Mesh use did not cause significant reduction in recurrences > 2 cm (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52-1.67, p = 0.83) or in reoperation rates (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39-1.07, p = 0.09). None of the specific meshes assessed were found to be superior in the reduction of recurrence or reoperation rates. Cases of mesh erosion with eventual foregut resection were noted and were associated with synthetic meshes only.

CONCLUSION

Mesh reinforcement seemed protective against total recurrence in LHH although this has to be interpreted with caution given the level of heterogeneity introduced by the inclusion of observational studies in the analysis. There was no significant reduction in large recurrences (> 2 cm) or reoperation rate. If the synthetic mesh is to be used patients need to be informed of the risk of mesh erosion.

A protocol for developing core outcome sets for laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair

Background

Hiatal hernias negatively damage patients’ health and life quality. Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair is currently the gold standard for the treatment of hiatal hernia (LHHR). Numerous clinical trials on laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair have been done, but the published findings are highly variable due to the lack of unique outcome sets. Basic outcome sets have ever been established over the previous decade for a few procedures, but not for hiatal hernia repair yet. This protocol outlines the procedure to develop a core outcome set for laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair COS-LHHR). COS-LHHR will provide a unique criteria for clinical investigations.

Methods

This study will be conducted in four phases: (1) scoping reviews of existing qualitative studies and outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials to develop a list of potential outcome domains; (2) qualitative interviews with patients to explore the impact of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair and the outcomes that they care most; (3) a multi-round e-Delphi study to achieve preliminary consensus on the core outcome set; and (4) an evidence-based consensus on a core outcome set will be achieved through a structured group consensus meeting, recommending best assessment outcome sets.

Discussion

The development the COS-LHHR will guide clinical research of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair with unique outcome assessment. This would improve comparative analyses among studies.

Large hiatus hernia: time for a paradigm shift?

Background

Laparoscopic large hiatal hernia (LHH) repair remains a challenge despite three decades of ongoing attempts at improving surgical outcome. Its rarity and complexity, coupled with suboptimal initial approach that is usually best suited for small symptomatic herniae have contributed to unacceptable higher failure rates.

Results

We have therefore undertaken a systematic appraisal of LHH with a view to clear out our misunderstandings of this entity and to address dogmatic practices that may have contributed to poor outcomes.

Conclusions

First, we propose strict criteria to define nomenclature in LHH and discuss ways of subcategorising them. Next, we discuss preoperative workup strategies, paying particular attention to any relevant often atypical symptoms, indications for surgery, timing of surgery, role of surgery in the elderly and emphasizing the key role of a preoperative CT imaging in evaluating the mediastinum. Some key dissection methods are then discussed with respect to approach to the mediastinal sac, techniques to avoid/deal with pleural breach and rationale to avoid Collis gastroplasty. The issues pertaining to the repair phase are also discussed by evaluating the merits of the cruroplasty, fundoplication types and gastropexy. We end up debating the role of mesh reinforcement and assess the evidence with regards to recurrence, reoperation rate, complications, esophageal dilatation, delayed gastric emptying and mortality. Lastly, we propose a rationale for routine postoperative investigations.

Less is more: cruroplasty alone is sufficient for revisional hiatal hernia surgery

BACKGROUND

Recurrence of hiatal hernia after anti-reflux surgery is common, with past studies reporting recurrence rates of 10-15%. Most patients experience relief from GERD symptoms following initial repair; however, those suffering from recurrence can have symptoms severe enough to warrant another operation. Although the standard of care is to revise the fundoplication or convert to magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in addition to redo cruroplasty, it stands to reason that with an intact fundoplication, a repeat cruroplasty is all that is necessary to alleviate the patients' symptoms. In other words, only fix that which is broken.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients with symptomatic hiatal hernia recurrence who underwent reoperation between January 2011 and September 2018 was conducted. Patients who received revisional cruroplasty alone were compared with cruroplasty plus some other revision (fundoplication revision, or takedown and MSA placement). Demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

There were 73 patients identified. Median time to recurrence after the first procedure was 3.7 (1.9-8.2) years. Thirty-two percent of the patients had GERD symptoms for more than 10 years. Twenty-six patients underwent cruroplasty only. Forty-seven patients underwent cruroplasty plus fundoplication revision. There were no significant differences in operative times (2.4 h cruroplasty alone, 2.8 h full revision, p = 0.75) or postoperative complications between the two groups. Patients had a mean follow-up time of 1.64 years. Of the 73 patients, 8 had subsequent hiatal hernia recurrence. The recurrence rate for patients with cruroplasty alone was 11%, and the recurrence rate for the full revision group was 12% (p = 1.00).

CONCLUSION

Leaving an intact fundoplication alone at the time of revisional surgery did not adversely affect surgical outcomes. This data suggests a role for hernia-only repair for recurrent hiatal hernias.

The first year is the hardest: a comparison of early versus late experience after the introduction of robotic hiatal hernia repair

While the majority of the literature written concerning minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair involves laparoscopy, little has been written concerning the transition to a robotic technique. We present our experience, with a transparent analysis of data, with regard to the introduction of robotic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. We reviewed our first 30 consecutive patients who underwent robotic PEH over a 2-year period after the introduction of robotic surgery at our institution. Patients were divided into two groups: the early experience group (procedures performed within the first year of introduction of robotic technique, n = 13) and a late experience group (procedures performed in the second year, n = 17). All procedures were performed by a single experienced foregut surgeon. The mean operative time for the early group was significantly greater than for the late group, 184 min versus 142 min, respectively (p < 0.01). Four patients in the early group required conversion to open, while zero patients in the late group required conversion (p = 0.03). Patient demographics and complications did not differ significantly between the two patient populations. The early robotic hiatal hernia repair experience can be more difficult than expected, even in the hands of an experienced laparoscopic team. We identify several areas of improvement including patient positioning, operating room team training, and technical experience. This data can help other surgeons prepare for the transition to robotic foregut surgery.

Urinary Bladder Matrix Reinforcement for Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair

Background and Objectives:

Synthetic mesh reinforcement during laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair (LHHR) reduces recurrence. Biologically derived mesh is also associated with reduced recurrence. Urinary bladder matrix (UBM), a biologically derived extracellular matrix mesh, has shown clinical success. We wanted to determine the safety and efficacy of LHHR with porcine UBM reinforcement.

Methods:

This retrospective, single-surgeon study reviewed clinical data on patients who underwent LHHR from August 2009 through May 2014, with diaphragmatic reinforcement with porcine UBM mesh. Primary outcomes were (1) recurrence—a >2-cm defect above the diaphragm at 3 months; (2) intra- and postoperative complications; (3) pre- and postoperative esophageal reflux (GERD) or dysphagia; and (4) cessation of proton pump inhibitor (PPI).

Results:

Sixty-two patients who had LHHR with UBM mesh were studied (mean age, 62 years, 53 women, mean body mass index 32.7 kg/m²) Before surgery 98% had GERD, 19% had dysphagia, and 98% were on PPI. Postoperative UGIS was performed on 66% 3 months after surgery, and 19% had a recurrence of >2 cm; 56% remained on PPI, and 16% (P < .001) remained symptomatic. Dysphagia improved in 75% (P = .05). No intraoperative complications were recorded. One postoperative mortality occurred secondary to an unrelated cardiac event.

Conclusions:

UBM mesh was effective and safe for LHHR. In addition to reducing the rate of recurrence compared to unreinforced primary repair, the properties of UBM, including site-specific constructive tissue remodeling, may add benefits over other biologic products. This study represents an evaluation of UBM mesh in a large cohort of patients who underwent LHHR.

Delayed Gastric Emptying Following Laparoscopic Repair of Very Large Hiatus Hernias Impairs Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) following hiatus hernia surgery may affect a substantial number of patients with adverse clinical consequences. Here, we aim to evaluate the impact of DGE following laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernias on patients' quality of life, gastrointestinal symptomatology, and daily function.

METHODS

Analysis of data collected from a multicenter prospective randomised trial of patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh versus sutured repair of very large hiatus hernias (>50% of stomach in chest). DGE was defined as gastric food retention visualised at endoscopy after 6 h of fasting at 6 months post-surgery. Quality of life (QOL), gastrointestinal symptomatology, and daily function were assessed with the SF-36 questionnaire, Visick scoring and structured surveys administered prior to surgery and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Nineteen of 102 (18.6%) patients had DGE 6 months after surgery. QOL questionnaires were completed in at least 80% of patients across all time points. Compared with controls, the DGE group demonstrated significantly lower SF-36 physical component scores, delayed improvement in health transition, more adverse gastrointestinal symptoms, higher Visick scores and a slower rate of return to normal daily activities. These differences were still present 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

DGE following large hiatus hernia repair is associated with a negative impact on quality of life at follow-up to 12 months after surgery.

Primary paraesophageal hernia repair with Gore® Bio-A® tissue reinforcement: long-term outcomes and association of BMI and recurrence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repair remains the gold-standard treatment for paraesophageal hernia (PEH). We analyzed long-term symptomatic outcomes and surgical reintervention rates after primary PEH repair with onlay synthetic bioabsorbable mesh (W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Flagstaff, AZ) and examined body mass index (BMI) as a possible risk factor for poor outcomes and for recurrence.

METHODS

We queried a prospectively maintained database to identify patients who underwent laparoscopic primary PEH repair with onlay patch of a bioprosthetic absorbable mesh (Bio-A® Gore®) between 05/28/2009 and 12/31/2013. Electronic health records were accessed to record demographic and operative data and were reviewed up to the present to identify any repeat procedures. Patients were grouped according to preoperative BMI (A: BMI < 25; B: BMI = 25-29.9; C: BMI = 30-34.9; D: BMI ≥ 35). Patients completed standardized satisfaction and symptom surveys.

RESULTS

In total, 399 patients were included. Most patients (n = 261; 65.4%) were women. Mean age was 59.6 ± 13.4 years; mean BMI was 29.9 ± 5.0 kg/m². The patients were grouped as follows: A, 53 patients (13.3%); B, 166 (41.6%); C, 115 (28.8%); D: 65 (16.3%). Four procedures (1.0%) were converted from laparoscopy to open procedures. All patients underwent an antireflux procedure (225 Nissen, 170 Toupet, 4 Dor). A mean follow-up of 44.7 ± 22.8 months was available for 305 patients (76.4%). 24/305 patients (7.9%) underwent reoperation, and the number of reoperations did not differ among groups (P = 0.64). Long-term symptomatic outcomes were available for 217/305 patients (71.1%) at a mean follow-up of 54.0 ± 13.1  months; no significant difference was observed among groups. 194/217 patients (89.4%) reported good to excellent satisfaction, with no significant differences among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic primary PEH repair with onlay Bio-A® mesh is a safe and feasible procedure with excellent long-term patient-centered outcomes and acceptable symptomatic recurrence rate. BMI does not appear to be related to the need for surgical reintervention.

Mesh cruroplasty in laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernias is not associated with better long-term outcomes compared to primary repair

BACKGROUND

Equipoise still exists regarding routine mesh cruroplasty during laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia (PEH). We aimed to determine whether selective mesh cruroplasty is associated with differences in recurrence and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We compared symptom outcomes (n = 688) and radiographic recurrences (n = 101; at least 10% [or 2 cm] of stomach above hiatus) for 795 non-emergent PEH repair with fundoplication (n = 106 with mesh).

RESULTS

Heartburn, regurgitation, epigastric pain, and anti-reflux medication use decreased significantly in both groups while postoperative dysphagia (mesh; p = 0.14), and bloating (non-mesh; p = 0.32), were unchanged. Radiographic recurrence rates were similar (15 mesh [22%] versus 86 non-mesh [17%]; p = 0.32; median 27 [IQR 14, 53] months), but was associated with surgical dissatisfaction (13% vs 4%; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Selective mesh cruroplasty was not associated with differences in symptom outcomes or radiographic recurrence rates during laparoscopic PEH repair. Radiographic recurrence was associated with dissatisfaction, emphasizing the need for continued focus on reducing recurrences.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Thoracic Surgery

The existing thoracic surgical literature contains several retrospective and observational studies that include patient-reported outcomes. To deliver true patient-centered care, it will be necessary to universally gather patient-reported outcomes prospectively, including them in routine patient care, clinical registries, and clinical trials.