Safety and Efficacy of Crura Augmentation with Phasix ST Mesh for Large Hiatal Hernia: 3-Year Single-Center Experience

Foregut Erosion Related to Biomedical Implants: A Scoping Review

Introduction: Biomedical devices implanted transabdominally have gained popularity over the past 50 years in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, paraesophageal hiatal hernia, and morbid obesity. Device-related foregut erosions (FEs) represent a challenging event that demands special attention owing to the potential of severe postoperative complications and death. Purpose: The aim was to provide an overview of full-thickness foregut injury leading to erosion associated with four types of biomedical devices. Methods: The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were queried until December 31, 2023. Eligible studies included all articles reporting data, management, and outcomes on device-related FE. Results: Overall, 132 articless were included for a total of 1292 patients suffering from device-related FE. Four different devices were included: the Angelchik antireflux prosthesis (AAP) (n = 25), nonabsorbable mesh for crural repair (n = 60), adjustable gastric banding (n = 1156), and magnetic sphincter augmentation device (n = 51). The elapsed time from device implant to erosion ranged from 1 to 480 months. Most commonly reported symptoms were dysphagia and epigastric pain, while acute presentation was reported rarely and mainly for gastric banding. The technique for device removal evolved from more invasive open approaches toward minimally invasive and endoscopic techniques. Esophagectomy and gastrectomy were mostly reported for nonabsorbable mesh FE. Overall mortality was .17%. Conclusions: Device-related FE is rare but may occur many years after AAP, nonabsorbable mesh, adjustable gastric banding, and magnetic sphincter augmentation implant. FE-related mortality is infrequent, however, increased postoperative morbidity and the need for esophagogastric resection were observed for nonabsorbable mesh-reinforced cruroplasty.

Medium term (> 12 months) outcomes after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair without conventional fundoplication using PH4B-mesh implant (Phasix™) in 176 reflux patients: experience and technique

BACKGROUND

Hiatal mesh repair remains a controversial topic among anti-reflux surgeons. Biosynthetic mesh cruroplasty may prevent early recurrence while avoiding late esophageal erosion and strictures associated with non-resorbable materials. So far, medium-term results on hiatal PH4B (Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate) mesh repair from high-volume centers are lacking.

METHODS

We analyzed the medium-term efficacy and safety of PH4B mesh cruroplasty in 176 consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with symptomatic hiatal hernias. Treatment failure was defined as the clinical recurrence of reflux symptoms. Patients could choose between mesh augmented hiatal repair (combined with a modified anterior hemifundoplication and fundophrenicopexy), Nissen fundoplication, and magnetic sphincter augmentation at their discretion. We also describe the surgical approach to mesh augmented hiatal repair used at our center.

RESULTS

On average, patients were 55 (± 14) years old and followed up for 22 (± 7; sum: 3931) months. Treatment failed in 6/176 (3%, 95% CI: 2-7%) patients. The 24-month Kaplan-Meier failure estimate was 2.8% (95% CI: 0.4-5%). Each centimeter in hernia size increased the risk of failure by 52% (p = 0.02). Heavier patients (BMI > 27) had an 11% higher probability of clinical symptom recurrence (p = 0.03). The dysphagia and bloating/gas rate were 13/176 (7%), each. 8 (5%) patients required endoscopy due to dysphagia but without intervention. No serious complications, including mesh infection and erosion, or fatalities, occurred.

CONCLUSION

Augmented PH4B mesh cruroplasty without conventional fundoplication shows excellent intermediate-term results in patients with reflux disease due to hiatal hernia. Around one in thirty patients experience treatment failure within 2 years of surgery. Hernia size and overweight are key determinants of treatment failure.

Cruroplasty with or without mesh? A systematic literature review with a novel time-organized proportion meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Improved outcomes with the use of non-absorbable mesh (NAM) for inguinal hernia repairs led to its rapid adoption for hiatal hernia (HH) repairs; however, feared complications occurred, and the trend shifted toward using absorbable mesh (AM). We aimed to analyze the literature assessing objective HH recurrence rates after primary laparoscopic cruroplasty with or without the use of different mesh types.

METHODS

A systematic literature review with both pairwise and time-organized proportion meta-analyses of articles published between January 1993 and September 2022 was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Taylor & Francis databases to identify relevant studies comparing groups undergoing cruroplasty with suture repair (SR) alone, AM, NAM, or partially absorbable mesh (PAM). Studies documenting an objective follow-up ≥ 6 months were included. The primary outcome was the HH recurrence rate confirmed by barium esophagram or upper GI endoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 6 randomized clinical trials, 25 retrospectives studies, and 3 prospective cohort studies. A total of 2170 subjects underwent laparoscopic HH repair and completed an objective follow-up ≥ 6 months after surgery; the objective recurrence rate was 20.8% (99/477) at a mean follow-up of 25.8 ± 16.4 months for the SR group, 20.6% (244/1187) at 28.1 ± 13.8 months for the AM group, 13.7% (65/475) at 30.8 ± 15.3 months for the NAM group, and 0% (0/31) at 32.5 ± 13.5 months for the PAM group. However, the pairwise meta-analysis revealed that overall mesh use was not superior to SR in preventing long-term HH recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The use of AM does not appear to reduce HH recurrence compared to SR alone. Although the data favors NAM to decrease objective HH recurrence in the mid-term, the long-term (≥ 48 months) recurrence rate was similar with or without any type of mesh.

Coated poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (Phasix ST™) mesh is safe and effective for hiatal hernia repair: our institutional experience and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) is a bioabsorbable mesh with a non-adhesive coating on one side that is being used to reinforce the hiatus during hiatal hernia repair; however, there is limited data regarding its use. The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes after hiatal hernia repair using this mesh at our institution and through a review of the literature.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved prospective database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing hiatal hernia repair from April 2018 to December 2022. A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate outcomes using P4HB coated mesh.

RESULTS

In our institutional cohort, there were 230 patients (59 males; 171 females) with a mean follow-up of 20 ± 14.6 months. No mesh-related complications occurred. Hernia recurrence was diagnosed in 11 patients (4.8%) with a median time to recurrence of 16 months. In the systematic review, 4 studies with 221 patients (76 males; 145 females) were included. Median follow-up ranged from 12 to 27 months. Recurrence rate in these studies was reported from 0 to 8.8%, with a total of 12 recurrences identified. Like our institutional cohort, no mesh-related complications were reported. After our recurrences were combined with those from the systematic review, a total of 23 recurrences were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis revealed a low recurrence rate following hiatal hernia repair with P4HB coated mesh (incidence rate per 100 person-years, 2.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.60, 4.04).

CONCLUSION

P4HB coated mesh is safe and effective for hiatal hernia repairs.

Hiatal hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh reinforcement: a qualitative systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Reinforcement of crural closure with synthetic resorbable mesh has been proposed to decrease recurrence rates after hiatal hernia repair, but continues to be controversial. This systematic review aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and intermediate-term results of using biosynthetic mesh to augment the hiatus.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed throughout this systematic review. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials tools were used to perform qualitative assessment of all studies included in this review. Recommendations were then summarized for the following pre-defined key items: protocol, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, study design, risk of bias, publication bias, and statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search found 520 articles, 101 of which were duplicates and 355 articles were determined to be unrelated to our study and excluded. The full text of the remaining 64 articles was thoroughly assessed. A total of 18 articles (1846 patients) were ultimately included for this review, describing hiatal hernia repair using three different biosynthetic meshes-BIO-A, Phasix ST, and polyglactin mesh. Mean operative time varied from 127 to 223 min. Mean follow up varied from 12 to 54 months. There were no mesh erosions or explants. One mesh-related complication of stenosis requiring reoperation was reported with BIO-A. Studies showed significant improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores, as well as satisfaction with surgery. Recurrence was reported as radiologic or clinical recurrence. Overall, recurrence rate varied from 0.9 to 25%.

CONCLUSION

The use of biosynthetic mesh is safe and effective for hiatal hernia repair with low complications rates and high symptom resolution. The reported recurrence rates are highly variable due to significant heterogeneity in defining and evaluating recurrences. Further randomized controlled trials with larger samples and long-term follow-up should be performed to better analyze outcomes and recurrence rates.

Management of complicated diaphragmatic hernia in the acute setting: a WSES position paper

BACKGROUND

Diaphragmatic hernia (DH) presenting acutely can be a potentially life-threatening condition. Its management continues to be debatable.

METHODS

A bibliographic search using major databases was performed using the terms "emergency surgery" "diaphragmatic hernia," "traumatic diaphragmatic rupture" and "congenital diaphragmatic hernia." GRADE methodology was used to evaluate the evidence and give recommendations.

RESULTS

CT scan of the chest and abdomen is the diagnostic gold standard to evaluate complicated DH. Appropriate preoperative assessment and prompt surgical intervention are important for a clinical success. Complicated DH repair is best performed via the use of biological and bioabsorbable meshes which have proven to reduce recurrence. The laparoscopic approach is the preferred technique in hemodynamically stable patients without significant comorbidities because it facilitates early diagnosis of small diaphragmatic injuries from traumatic wounds in the thoraco-abdominal area and reduces postoperative complications. Open surgery should be reserved for situations when skills and equipment for laparoscopy are not available, where exploratory laparotomy is needed, or if the patient is hemodynamically unstable. Damage Control Surgery is an option in the management of critical and unstable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Complicated diaphragmatic hernia is a rare life-threatening condition. CT scan of the chest and abdomen is the gold standard for diagnosing the diaphragmatic hernia. Laparoscopic repair is the best treatment option for stable patients with complicated diaphragmatic hernias. Open repair is considered necessary in majority of unstable patients in whom Damage Control Surgery can be life-saving.

Fully resorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) mesh for soft tissue repair and reconstruction: A scoping review

Background

Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) is a fully resorbable, biologically-produced polymer with a strength and flexibility comparable to permanent synthetic polymers. The objective was to identify/summarize all peer-reviewed publications involving P4HB mesh.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted within PubMed and included articles published through October 2022.

Results

A total of n = 79 studies were identified (n = 12 in vitro/bench; n = 14 preclinical; n = 6 commentaries; n = 50 clinical). Of the clinical studies, n = 40 reported results applicable to hernia and n = 10 to plastic/reconstructive surgery and involved patients of all Centers for Disease Control (CDC) wound classes and Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) grades.

Conclusion

P4HB mesh provides long-term hernia repair strength and exhibits promising clinical outcomes beyond its resorption period. Future studies should include randomized controlled trials comparing P4HB to other biomaterials, as well as optimal patient selection, operative technique, long-term outcomes, minimization of potential mesh-related complications, and potential contraindications/complications for P4HB in hernia/abdominal wall reconstruction.

Does bioabsorbable mesh reduce hiatal hernia recurrence rates? A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The use of bioabsorbable mesh at the hiatus is controversial. Long-term data are scant. We evaluated the world literature and performed a meta-analysis to determine if these meshes were effective in reducing recurrence.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and ClinicalKey. We evaluated articles reporting on both Bio-A™ (polyglycolic acid:trimethylene carbonate-PGA:TMC) and Phasix™ (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-P4HB) used at the hiatus. The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used to estimate the overall pooled treatment effect along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Similar analysis was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes, i.e., recurrence rate, mean surgical time, mean hospital stays and mean follow-up duration between non-Mesh and Mesh group. The I² statistic was computed to assess the heterogeneity in effect sizes across the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies (12 mesh studies with 963 subjects and 9 non-mesh studies with 617 subjects) were included to conduct the meta-analysis. There was one article reporting outcomes on P4HB mesh (73 subjects) and 11 on PGA:TMC mesh (890 subjects). The bioabsorbable mesh group had a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to the non-mesh group (8% vs. 18%; 95%CI 0.08-0.17), pooled p-value < 0.0001. Surgery time was shorter in the mesh group compared to the non-mesh group (136.4 min vs. 150 min) but not statistically significant (p = 0.54). There tended to be a more extended follow-up period after surgery in the non-mesh group compared to the mesh group (27 vs. 25.8 months, range 10.8-54 months); but not statistically significant (ES: 27.4; 95%CI 21.6-33.3; p = 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Hiatal hernia repair with bioabsorbable mesh is more effective at reducing hernia recurrence rate in the mid-term than simple suture cruroplasty. Further studies investigating the long-term outcomes and P4HB mesh are needed.

Management of paraesophageal hiatus hernia: recommendations following a European expert Delphi consensus

AIMS

There is considerable controversy regarding optimal management of patients with paraesophageal hiatus hernia (pHH). This survey aims at identifying recommended strategies for work-up, surgical therapy, and postoperative follow-up using Delphi methodology.

METHODS

We conducted a 2-round, 33-question, web-based Delphi survey on perioperative management (preoperative work-up, surgical procedure and follow-up) of non-revisional, elective pHH among European surgeons with expertise in upper-GI. Responses were graded on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items from the questionnaire were defined as "recommended" or "discouraged" if positive or negative concordance among participants was > 75%. Items with lower concordance levels were labelled "acceptable" (neither recommended nor discouraged).

RESULTS

Seventy-two surgeons with a median (IQR) experience of 23 (14-30) years from 17 European countries participated (response rate 60%). The annual median (IQR) individual and institutional caseload was 25 (15-36) and 40 (28-60) pHH-surgeries, respectively. After Delphi round 2, "recommended" strategies were defined for preoperative work-up (endoscopy), indication for surgery (typical symptoms and/or chronic anemia), surgical dissection (hernia sac dissection and resection, preservation of the vagal nerves, crural fascia and pleura, resection of retrocardial lipoma) and reconstruction (posterior crurorrhaphy with single stitches, lower esophageal sphincter augmentation (Nissen or Toupet), and postoperative follow-up (contrast radiography). In addition, we identified "discouraged" strategies for preoperative work-up (endosonography), and surgical reconstruction (crurorrhaphy with running sutures, tension-free hiatus repair with mesh only). In contrast, many items from the questionnaire including most details of mesh augmentation (indication, material, shape, placement, and fixation technique) were "acceptable".

CONCLUSIONS

This multinational European Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process to identify recommended strategies for the management of pHH. Our work may be useful in clinical practice to guide the diagnostic process, increase procedural consistency and standardization, and to foster collaborative research.

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.

Patient-tailored algorithm for laparoscopic cruroplasty standardization: comparison with hiatal surface area and medium-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Different methods have been described for laparoscopic hiatoplasty and hiatus hernia (HH) repair. All techniques are not standardized and the choice to reinforce or not the hiatus with a mesh is left to the operating surgeon's preference. Hiatal surface area (HSA) has been described as an attempt at standardization; in case the area is > 4 cm², a mesh is used to reinforce the repair.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe a new patient-tailored algorithm (PTA), compare its performance in predicting crura mesh buttressing to HSA, and analyze outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-center, descriptive study (September 2018-September 2021). Adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent laparoscopic HH repair. Outcomes and quality of life measured with the disease-specific gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) and reflux symptom index (RSI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients that underwent laparoscopic hiatoplasty and Toupet fundoplication were included. The median age was 61 years (range 32-83) and the median BMI was 26.7 (range 17-36). According to the PTA, 27 patients (54%) underwent simple suture repair while crural mesh buttressing with Phasix-ST® was used in 23 (46%). According to the HSA, the median hiatus area was 4.7 cm² while 26 patients had an HSA greater than 4 cm². The overall concordance rate between PTA and HSA was 94% (47/50). The median hospital stay was 1.9 days (range 1-8) and the 90-day complication rate was 4%. The median follow-up was 18.6 months (range 1-35). Hernia recurrence was diagnosed in 6%. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in one patient (2%). The GERD-HRQL (p < 0.001) and RSI (p = 0.001) were significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of PTA for cruroplasty standardization in the setting of HH repair seems effective. While concordance with HSA is high, the PTA seems easier and promptly available in the operative theater with a potential increase in procedure standardization, reproducibility, and teaching.

Medium-term safety and efficacy profile of paraesophageal hernia repair with Phasix-ST® mesh: a single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Hernia recurrence after laparoscopic repair is a perplexing problem. In an effort to reduce anatomical and clinical recurrences, different type of meshes have been used to bolster the esophageal hiatus.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess safety, medium-term efficacy, and quality of life improvement after laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia reinforced with a biosynthetic absorbable mesh (Phasix-ST^®).

METHODS

Observational single-center retrospective single-arm cohort study (November 2015-February 2021). We included all adult patients (> 18 years old) who underwent laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with Phasix-ST^® mesh and Toupet fundoplication.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included. The median postoperative stay was 3.2 days (range 2-9) and the postoperative complication rate was 11.7%. The median follow-up time was 27 months (range 1-53). No mesh-related complications were detected. Hernia recurrence was diagnosed in six patients (8.8%). The recurrence-free probability at 34 months was 0.89 (95% CI 0.807-0.988) while at 60 months was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.97). Hernia recurrences were mostly observed between 21 and 36 months after the operation. None of the patients required surgical revision and all were managed with PPI. Postoperative dysphagia requiring endoscopic balloon dilatation occurred in 2.9% of patients. Compared to baseline, both the GERD-HRQL (15.2 ± 6.2 vs. 3.2 ± 3.1; p = 0.026) and all SF-36 items were significantly improved (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic crura augmentation with Phasix-ST^® mesh combined with a Toupet fundoplication is safe and seems effective in the medium-term follow-up. Phasix-ST^® crural reinforcement resulted in low hernia recurrence rate with a sustained symptoms and quality of life improvement.

[Planning and Design of a Prospective Randomised Multi-Centre Trial on the Repair of Large Hiatal Hernias with Sutures vs. Pledgeted Sutures vs. Absorbable Mesh]

BACKGROUND

The hernia recurrence rate after surgical treatment of large hiatal hernias is still very high. The optimal technique to reduce the recurrence rate is still under debate. The aim of this work is to clarify whether pledgeted reinforced sutures or a resorbable mesh can reduce the recurrence rate compared to hiatus closure with only sutures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Austria-wide, multi-centre, prospective, randomised study was planned. The study protocol was prepared by the main test centre (University Clinic for General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg). The study includes patients who are scheduled to undergo laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery for a large symptomatic hiatal hernia. A large hiatal hernia is defined as > 5 cm in manometry or gastroscopy or at least ⅓ of the stomach lying intrathoracically. The primary study endpoint is defined as the hernia recurrence rate, objectively assessed by gastroscopy. After inclusion in the study, patients will be followed up for 6 months, 1 year, 3 years and 5 years after the operation, using standardised questionnaires and gastroscopy. The power calculation showed a requirement of 55 patients per group. Preoperative randomisation and data management are software-based.

RESULTS

The study approval by the leading ethics committee is currently pending and the study itself has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov since October 2020. The Clinical Trials Registration Number is NCT04591860. Five clinics are participating in the study at the moment and all centres are actively enrolling patients. The duration of the study is set until January 2027.

CONCLUSION

This study is the world's first prospective randomised study that examines the value of pledgets and resorbable mesh to reduce the recurrence rate after treatment of large hiatal hernias. The results will help to find the optimal technique to close the hiatus of large hiatal hernias.

The use of biosynthetic mesh in giant hiatal hernia repair: is there a rationale? A 3-year single-center experience

PURPOSE

Reinforced prosthetic crural repair is particularly indicated for giant hiatal hernias. The rationale is to reduce the recurrence rate in the long term. The aim of our study is to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic giant hiatal hernia repair using a biosynthetic mesh.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 44 patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh-reinforced hiatal closure and fundoplication using a biosynthetic material. Inclusion criterion was large hiatal defects (> 5 cm). Follow-up was scheduled at 6, 12 and 36 months after surgery.

RESULTS

44 patients (29F) with a mean age of 62 years (range 14-85) and mean of BMI 24.5 kg/m² (range 21-29) underwent successful laparoscopic repair. Twenty-six (59.1%) patients had Nissen-Rossetti fundoplication, whereas 18 (40.9%) had Toupet fundoplication. Six-month questionnaire for the evaluation of symptoms was available for 43 patients (97.7%) and for 40 (90.9%) patients at 12 and 36 months. Mean preoperative symptoms score analysis was 1.68 ± 0.73. Mean scores at each follow-up time were significantly improved compared to baseline (p > 0.05). Barium swallow was available in 37 patients (84.1%) at 1 year after surgery. Radiologic recurrence was observed in two patients (4.5%). No patient had symptoms attributable to recurrence or required revisional surgery. There were no mesh-related complications at 3 years follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of biosynthetic mesh for crural reinforcement is associated with a low incidence of mesh-related complications and with a reasonably low recurrence rate (4.5%) at 36 months. However, additional data with longer follow-up are needed to determine long-term safety and efficacy.

Surgical and clinical outcomes comparison of mesh usage in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair

PURPOSE

Use of absorbable mesh in hiatal hernia (HH) repair has been shown to decrease recurrence rates. Our aim was to compare the efficiency of three meshes in relation to the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing HH repair.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review was done for adult patients who underwent HH repair with mesh between 2004 and 2016. Demographics, intra-operative, and cost data were collected. Esophageal symptoms and medication use were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Surgical outcomes were evaluated at 6-, 12-months, and long-term follow-up. Three groups were created based on type of mesh: human tissue matrix (HTM), biosynthetic mesh (BIOS), or porcine tissue matrix (PTM). Comparisons were performed between groups using SPSS v.26.0 and PC SAS v9.4, α = 0.05.

RESULTS

292 patients were included (HTM:N = 162, BIOS:N = 83, PTM:N = 47). Majority were male (60.4%), Caucasian (93.2%), median age, and BMI of 59 years [25-90 years] and 29.19 kg/m² [18.9-58.0 kg/m²], respectively. 69% had a large HH. Median follow-up time was 27 months [1-166 months]. Overall recurrence rate was 39%, being significantly lower in BIOS at long-term (HTM: 31%, BIOS: 17%, PTM: 19%, p = 0.038). All groups had a significant postoperative improvement of esophageal symptoms, all p < 0.001. 65-70% of the cost difference between the groups was incurred by the cost of mesh alone (HTM: $1072, BIOS: $548, PTM: $1295), with the remainder attributable to the surgery itself.

CONCLUSION

While outcomes of the three mesh groups were similar in our data, there was a significant difference in mesh cost. Surgeon and hospital preference still play a role in choosing the type of mesh used; however, knowledge of the individual mesh cost will help surgeons make better informed decisions.