Practice-Changing Milestones in Anti-reflux and Hiatal Hernia Surgery: a Single Surgeon Perspective over 27 years and 1200 Operations

Effects of Spinal Deformities on Hiatal Hernia Occurrence and Recurrence

BACKGROUND

Spinal deformities such as kyphosis, lordosis, and scoliosis have demonstrated a possible association between these deformities. Our hypothesis is that the presence of spinal deformities will increase the risk of hiatal hernia recurrence after repair.

METHODS

The following data was retrospectively gleaned for patients undergoing hiatal hernia repair (1997-2022): age, sex, date of hiatal hernia repair, presence and type of spinal deformity, Cobb angle, type of hiatal hernia and size, type of hiatal hernia repair, recurrence and size, time to recurrence, reoperation, type of reoperation, and time to reoperation.

RESULTS

Spinal deformities were present in 15.8% of 546 patients undergoing hiatal hernia repair, with a distribution of 21.8% kyphosis, 2.3% lordosis, 58.6% scoliosis, and 17.2% multiple. There was no difference in sex or age between groups. Spinal deformity patients were more likely to have types III and IV hiatal hernias (52.3% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.02) and larger hernias (median 5 [3-8] vs. 4 [2-6], p = 0.01). There was no difference in access, fundoplication use, or mesh use between groups. However, these patients had a higher recurrence rate (47.7% vs 30.0%, p = 0.001) and a shorter time to recurrence (months) (10.3 [5.6-25.1] vs 19.2 [9.8-51.0], p = 0.02). Cobb angle did not affect recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal deformity patients were more likely to have more complex and larger hiatal hernias. They were at higher risk of hiatal hernia recurrence after repair with shorter times to recurrence. This is a group that requires special attention with additional preoperative counseling and possibly use of surgical adjuncts in repair.

LAPAROSCOPIC ANTIREFLUX SURGERY: ARE OLD QUESTIONS ANSWERED? MESH HERNIOPLASTY

Hiatal hernias are at high risk of recurrence. Mesh reinforcement after primary approximation of the hiatal crura has been advocated to reduce this risk of recurrence, analogous to mesh repair of abdominal wall hernias. However, the results of such repairs have been mixed, at best. In addition, repairs using some type of mesh have led to significant complications, such as erosion and esophageal stricture. At present, there is no consensus as to (1) whether mesh should be used, (2) indications for use, (3) the type of mesh, and (4) in what configuration. This lack of consensus is likely secondary to the notion that recurrence occurs at the site of crural approximation. We have explored the theory that many, if not most, "recurrences" occur in the anterior and left lateral aspects of the hiatus, normally where the mesh is not placed. We theorized that "recurrence" actually represents progression of the hernia, rather than a true recurrence. This has led to our development of a new mesh configuration to enhance the tensile strength of the hiatus and counteract continued stresses from intra-abdominal pressure.

Narrative review of management controversies for paraesophageal hernia

Objective

To review management controversies in paraesophageal hernia and options for surgical repair.

Background

Paraesophageal hernia is an increasingly common problem. There are controversies over whether and when paraesophageal hernias should be surgically repaired. In addition, if these hernias are to be repaired, the method of repair, need for mesh reinforcement, need for fundoplication, and need for gastropexy are not uniformly accepted.

Methods

Recent literature was reviewed on need for repair, approach (open, laparoscopic or robotic surgery), method of repair (primary suture, use of relaxing incisions, use of mesh reinforcement), materials and configuration of mesh reinforcement, need and type of fundoplication, and need for gastropexy, with emphasis on surgical outcomes.

Conclusions

The extant literature suggests that paraesophageal hernia should be approached in a patient-centered, precision medicine manner. In general, hernia reduction, sac excision and primary suture approximation of the hiatal crura are mandatory. Use of mesh should be based on individual risk factors; if mesh is used, biological meshes appear to have a more favorable safety profile, with the “reverse C” or keyhole configuration allowing for increase in crural tensile strength at it most vulnerable areas. Use and choice of fundoplication or magnetic sphincter augmentation should be based on individual considerations. Finally, gastropexy is generally ineffective and should be used only in extreme circumstances.