Temporal patterns of hiatus hernia recurrence and hiatal failure: quality of life and recurrence after revision surgery

Long-term results after laparoscopic revision fundoplication: a retrospective, single-center analysis in 194 patients with recurrent hiatal hernia

BACKGROUND

After laparoscopic fundoplication, 10-20% of patients experience symptom recurrence-often due to resurgence of the hiatal hernia. The standard surgical treatment for such cases remains laparoscopic revision fundoplication. However, there is little data on the time frame and anatomic patterns of failed fundoplications. Additionally, few large studies exist on the long-term efficacy and safety of laparoscopic revision fundoplication.

METHODS

In a single-center, retrospective analysis of 194 consecutive revision fundoplications for recurrent reflux disease due to hiatal hernia, we collected data on time to failure and patterns of failure of the primary operation, as well as on the efficacy and safety of the revision.

RESULTS

The median time to failure of the primary fundoplication was 3 years. Most hiatal defects were smaller than 5 cm and located anteriorly or concentric around the esophagus. Laparoscopic redo fundoplication was technically successful in all cases. The short-term complication rate was 9%, mainly dysphagia requiring endoscopic intervention. At a mean follow-up of 4.7 years, 77% of patients were symptom-free, 14% required daily PPI, and 9% underwent secondary revision. Cumulative failure rates were 9%, 23%, and 31% at 1, 5, and 10 years.

CONCLUSION

The majority of failed fundoplications occur within 3 years of primary surgery, with most patients exhibiting anterior or concentric defects. For these patients, laparoscopic revision fundoplication is a safe procedure with a low rate of short-term complications and satisfactory long-term results.

Cruroplasty as a standalone treatment for recurrent hiatal hernia repair

PURPOSE

Following laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS), recurrence of hiatal hernia is common. Patients with symptomatic recurrence typically undergo revision of the fundoplication or conversion to magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in addition to cruroplasty. However, patients with an intact fundoplication or MSA may only require repeat cruroplasty to repair their recurrent hiatal hernia. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes following cruroplasty alone compared to full revision (i.e. redo fundoplication or MSA with cruroplasty) for the management of recurrent hiatal hernias.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing surgical revision of a symptomatic recurrent hiatal hernia between February 2009 and October 2022 was performed. Preoperative characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between patients undergoing cruroplasty alone versus full revision.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients were included in the analysis. 93 patients underwent full revision, and 48 patients underwent cruroplasty alone. The mean time between initial and revisional surgery was 8 ± 7.7 years. There was no significant difference in operative time or rates of intra-operative or post-operative complication between groups. Patients undergoing cruroplasty alone had a mean Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health Related Quality Life (GERD-HRQL) Questionnaire score of 9.6 ± 10.2 compared to a mean score of 8.9 ± 11.2 for full revision patients (p = 0.829). Recurrence rates following revision was 10.4% for cruroplasty alone patients and 11.8% in full revision patients (p > 0.999).

CONCLUSION

In patients with intact fundoplication or MSA, cruroplasty alone results in similar post-operative outcomes compared to full revision for recurrent hiatal hernia.

Lessons learned from revision procedures: a case series pleading for reinforcement of the anterior hiatus in recurrent hiatal hernia

BACKGROUND

Hiatal Hernia (HH) is a common structural defect of the diaphragm. Laparoscopic repair with suturing of the hiatal pillars followed by fundoplication has become standard practice. In an attempt to lower HH recurrence rates, mesh reinforcement, commonly located at the posterior site of the esophageal hiatus, has been used. However, effectiveness of posterior mesh augmentation is still up to debate. There is a lack of understanding of the mechanism of recurrence requiring further investigation. We investigated the anatomic location of HH recurrences in an attempt to assess why HH recurrence rates remain high despite various attempts with mesh reinforcement.

METHODS

A retrospective case series of prospectively collected data from patients with hiatal hernia repair between 2012 and 2020 was performed. In total, 54 patients with a recurrent hiatal hernia operation were included in the study. Video clips from the revision procedure were analyzed by a surgical registrar and senior surgeon to assess the anatomic location of recurrent HH. For the assessment, the esophageal hiatus was divided into four equal quadrants. Additionally, patient demographics, hiatal hernia characteristics, and operation details were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

54 patients were included. The median time between primary repair and revision procedure was 25 months (IQR 13-95, range 0-250). The left-anterior quadrant was involved in 43 patients (80%), the right-anterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), the left-posterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), and the right-posterior quadrant in 10 patients (19%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, hiatal hernia recurrences occured most commonly at the left-anterior quadrant of the hiatus, however, posterior recurrences were not uncommon. Based on our results, we hypothesize that both posterior and anterior hiatal reinforcement might be a suitable solution to lower the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia. A randomized controlled trial using a circular, bio-absorbable mesh has been initiated to test our hypothesis.

Recurrence in Paraesophageal Hernia: Patient Factors and Composite Surgical Repair in 862 Cases

BACKGROUND

Repair of giant paraesophageal hernia (PEH) is associated with a considerable hernia recurrence rate by objective measures. This study analyzed a large series of laparoscopic giant PEH repair to determine factors associated with anatomical recurrence.

METHOD

Data was extracted from a single-surgeon prospective database of laparoscopic repair of giant PEH from 1991 to 2021. Upper endoscopy was performed within 12 months postoperatively and selectively thereafter. Any supra-diaphragmatic stomach was defined as anatomical recurrence. Patient and hernia characteristics and technical operative factors, including "composite repair" (360° fundoplication with esophagopexy and cardiopexy to right crus), were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic primary repair was performed in 862 patients. The anatomical recurrence rate was 27.3% with median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 16, 68). Recurrence was symptomatic in 45% of cases and 29% of these underwent a revision operation. Hernia recurrence was associated with younger age, adversely affected quality of life, and were associated with non-composite repair. Multivariate analysis identified age < 70 years, presence of Barrett's esophagus, absence of "composite repair", and hiatus closure under tension as independent factors associated with recurrence (HR 1.27, 95%CI 0.88-1.82, p = 0.01; HR 1.58, 95%CI 1.12-2.23, p = 0.009; HR 1.72, 95%CI 1.2-2.44, p = 0.002; HR 2.05, 95%CI 1.33-3.17, p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Repair of giant PEH is associated with substantial anatomical recurrence associated with patient and technique factors. Patient factors included age < 70 years, Barrett's esophagus, and hiatus tension. "Composite repair" was associated with lower recurrence rate.

Trends in outcomes of 862 giant hiatus hernia repairs over 30 years

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic giant hiatus hernia repair is technically difficult with ongoing debate regarding the most effective surgical technique. Repair of small hernia has been well described but data for giant hernia is variable. This study evaluated trends in outcomes of laparoscopic non-mesh repair of giant paraesophageal hernia (PEH) over 30 years.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a single-surgeon prospective database. Laparoscopic non-mesh repairs for giant PEH between 1991 and 2021 included. Three-hundred-sixty-degree fundoplication was performed routinely, evolving into "composite repair" (esophagopexy and cardiopexy to the right crus). Cases were chronologically divided into tertiles based on operation date (Group 1, 1991-2002; Group 2, 2003-2012; Group 3, 2012-2021) with trends in casemix, operative factors and outcomes evaluated. Hernia recurrence was plotted using weighted moving average and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis.

RESULTS

862 giant PEH repairs met selection criteria. There was an increasing proportion of "composite repair" after the first decade (Group 1, 2.7%; Group 2, 81.9%; Group 3, 100%; p < 0.001). There were less anatomical hernia recurrence (Group 1, 36.6%; Group 2, 22.9%; Group 3, 22.7%; p < 0.001) and symptomatic recurrence (Group 1, 34.2%; Group 2, 21.9%; Group 3, 7%; p < 0.001) over time. The incidence of anatomical recurrence declined over time, decreasing from 30.8% and plateauing below 17.6% near the study's end. Median followup (months) in the first decade was higher but followup between the latter two decades comparable (Group 1, 49 [IQR 20, 81]; Group 2, 30 [IQR 15, 65]; Group 3, 24 [14, 56]; p < 0.001). There were 10 (1.2%) Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications including two perioperative deaths (0.2%).

CONCLUSION

Hernia recurrence rates decreased with increasing case volume. This coincided with the increasing adoption of "composite repair", supporting the possible improvement in recurrence rates with this approach.

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.

Novel "starburst" mesh configuration for paraesophageal and recurrent hiatal hernia repair: comparison with keyhole mesh configuration

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists over the use of mesh, its type and configuration in repair of hiatal hernia. We have used biological mesh for large or recurrent hiatal hernias. We have developed a mesh configuration to better enhance the tensile strength of the hiatus by folding the mesh over the edge of the hiatus-entitled the "starburst" configuration. We report our experience with the starburst configuration, comparing it to our results with the keyhole configuration.

METHODS

Medical records of all patients undergoing either the keyhole or starburst mesh configuration hiatal hernia repair were reviewed between 2017 and 2021. Data gathered included age, sex, type of hernia (sliding, paraesophageal, or recurrent), fundoplication type (none, Nissen, Toupet, Dor, Collis-Nissen, Collis-Toupet, or magnetic sphincter augmentation [MSA]), 30-day complications, and long-term outcomes (hiatal hernia recurrence, reflux-symptom recurrence, dysphagia, dilations, reoperations).

RESULTS

From 7/2017 to 8/2019, 51 cases using the keyhole mesh were completed. Sliding hiatal hernia comprised 4%, paraesophageal hernia (PEH) 64% and recurrent hiatal hernia (RHH) 34% of cases. Distribution of fundoplication type: 2% none, 41% Nissen, 41% Toupet, 8% Dor, 2% Collis-Nissen, and 6% Collis-Toupet. 30-day complication rate 31%. Long-term outcomes: recurrent hiatal hernia 16%, dysphagia 12%, dysphagia requiring dilation(s) 10%, recurrent GERD symptoms 4%, and reoperation 14%. From 10/2020 to 8/2021, 58 cases using the starburst configuration were completed. PEH comprised 60% and RHH 40%. Distribution of fundoplication type: 10% none, 40% Nissen, 43% Toupet, 5% MSA, 2% Collis-Toupet. 30-day complication rate 16%. Long-term outcomes: recurrent hiatal hernia 19%, dysphagia 14%, dilations 5%, recurrent GERD symptoms 9%, and reoperations 3%.

CONCLUSION

The starburst mesh configuration compares favorably with the keyhole configuration with respect to postoperative dysphagia, need for esophageal dilation, and GERD symptom recurrence, with similar recurrence rates. We are continuing to further refine this technique and study the long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic revision paraesophageal hernia repair: a 16-year experience at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHr) is a safe and effective procedure for relieving foregut symptoms associated with paraesophageal hernias (PEH). Nonetheless, it is estimated that about 30-50% of patients will have symptomatic recurrence requiring additional surgical intervention. Revision surgery is technically demanding and may be associated with a higher rate of morbidity and poor patient-reported outcomes. We present the largest study of perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes among patients who underwent laparoscopic revision PEHr.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent laparoscopic revision paraesophageal hernia repair between February 2003 and October 2019, at a single institution was conducted. All revisions of Type I hiatal hernias were excluded. The following validated surveys were used to evaluate quality-of-life outcomes: Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related QOL (GERD-HRQL). Patient demographic, perioperative, and quality-of-life (QOL) data were analyzed using univariate analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety patients were included in the final analysis (63.2% female, 90.5% single revision, 9.5% multiple revisions) with a mean age, BMI, and age-adjusted Charlson score of 56.6 ± 14.7 years, 29.7 ± 5.7 kg/m², and 2.04 ± 1.9, respectively. The study cohort consisted of type II (49.5%), III (46.3%), and IV hiatal hernia (4.2%), respectively. Most patients underwent either a complete (68.7%) or partial (27.7%) fundoplication. A Collis gastroplasty was performed in 14.7% of patients. The median follow-up was 17.6 months. The overall morbidity and mortality rate were 15.8% and 1.1%, respectively. The 30-day readmission rate was 9.5%. Additionally, at latest follow-up 47.9% remained on antireflux medication. At latest follow-up, there was significant improvement in mean RSI score (46.4%, p < 0.001) from baseline within the study population. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in QOL between patients who had a history of an initial repair only or history of revision surgery at latest review. The overall recurrence rate was 16.3% with 6.3% requiring a surgical revision.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic revision PEHr is associated with a low rate of morbidity and mortality. Revision surgery may provide improvement in QOL outcomes, despite the high rate of long-term antireflux medication use. The rate of recurrent paraesophageal hernia remains low with few patients requiring a second revision. However, longer follow-up is needed to better characterize the long-term recurrence rate and symptomatic improvements.

THE DIAPHRAGM EVENTRATION UNDER THE GUISE OF RECURRENT PARAESOPHAGEAL HIATAL HERNIA

The clinical case presented in this article illustrates one of the serious iatrogenic complications of Nissen fundoplication: diaphragmatic eventration. A 65-year-old patient was diagnosed with recurrent paraesophageal hiatal hernia. Intraoperatively, it was treated as diaphragmatic eventration. Laparoscopic Nissen refundoplication, suturing of the diaphragm defect was performed. The patient was discharged in satisfactory condition on the 5th day.

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.

Anatomic location and mechanism of hiatal hernia recurrence: a video-based assessment

INTRODUCTION

Hiatal hernia recurrence following surgical repair is common. We sought to define the most common anatomic location and mechanism for hiatal failure to inform technical strategies to decrease recurrence rates.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review and video analysis were performed for all recurrent hiatal hernia operations performed by a single surgeon between January 2013 and April 2020. Hiatal recurrences were defined by anatomic quadrants. Recurrences on both left and right on either the anterior or posterior portion of the hiatus were simply classified as 'anterior' or 'posterior', respectively. Three or more quadrants were defined as circumferential. Mechanism of recurrence was defined as disruption of the previous repair or dilation of the hiatus.

RESULTS

There were 130 patients to meet criteria. Median time to reoperation from previous hiatal repair was 60 months (IQR19.5-132). First-time recurrent repairs accounted for 74%, second time 18%, and three or more previous repairs for 8% of analyzed procedures. Mesh had been placed at the hiatus in a previous operation in 16%. All reoperative cases were completed laparoscopically. Video analysis revealed anterior recurrences were most common (67%), followed by circumferential (29%). There were two with left-anterior recurrence (1.5%), two posterior recurrence (1.5%), and one right-sided recurrence. The mechanism of recurrence was dilation in 74% and disruption in 26%. Disruption as a mechanism was most common in circumferential hiatal failures. Neither the prior number of hiatal surgeries nor the presence of mesh at the time of reoperation correlated with anatomic recurrence location or mechanism. Reoperations in patients with hiatal disruption occurred after a shorter interval when compared to hiatal dilation.

CONCLUSION

The most common location and mechanism for hiatal hernia recurrence is anterior dilation of the hiatus. Outcomes following techniques designed to reinforce the anterior hiatus and perhaps to prevent hiatal dilation should be explored.

Quality of life and symptom assessment in paraesophageal hernias: a systematic literature review of reporting standards

BACKGROUND

Paraesophageal hernias (PEH) present with a range of symptoms affecting physical and mental health. This systematic review aims to assess the quality of reporting standards for patients with PEH, identify the most frequently used quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity assessment tools in PEH and to ascertain additional symptoms reported by these patients not captured by these tools.

METHODS

A systematic literature review according to PRISMA protocols was carried out following a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for studies published between January 1960 and May 2020. Published abstracts from conference proceedings were included. Data on QOL tools used and reported symptoms were extracted.

RESULTS

This review included 220 studies reporting on 28 353 patients. A total of 46 different QOL and symptom severity tools were used across all studies, and 89 different symptoms were reported. The most frequently utilized QOL tool was the Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease-Health related quality of life questionnaire symptom severity instrument (47.7%), 57.2% of studies utilized more than 2 QOL tools and 'dysphagia' was the most frequently reported symptom, in 55.0% of studies. Notably, respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms, although less common than GI symptoms, were reported and included 'dyspnea' reported in 35 studies (15.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

There lacks a QOL assessment tool that captures the range of symptoms associated with PEH. Reporting standards for this cohort must be improved to compare patient outcomes before and after surgery. Further investigations must seek to develop a PEH specific tool, that encompasses the relative importance of symptoms when considering surgical intervention and assessing symptomatic improvement following surgery.

Understanding the GERD Barrier

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is steadily increasing in incidence and now affects 18% to 28% of the population in the United States. A thorough understanding of the pathophysiology underlying this disease is necessary to improve the current standard of care. Most GERD pathophysiology models focus on the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) as the key element which prevents esophageal reflux. More recent research has highlighted the crural diaphragm (CD) as an additional critical component of the GERD barrier. We now know that the CD actively relaxes when the distal esophagus is distended and contracts when the stomach is distended. Crural myotomy in animal models increases esophageal acid exposure, highlighting the CD's vital role. There are also multiple physiological studies in patients with symptomatic hiatal hernia that demonstrate CD dysfunction is associated with GERD. Finally, computer models integrating physiological data predict that the CD and the LES each contribute roughly 50% to the GERD barrier. This more robust understanding has implications for future procedural management of GERD. Specifically, effective GERD management mandates repair of the CD and reinforcement of the LES. Given the high rate of hiatal hernia recurrences, it seems that novel antireflux procedures should target this essential component of the GERD barrier. Future research should focus on methods to maintain crural integrity, decrease hiatal hernia recurrence, and improve long-term competency of the GERD barrier.

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.

Anatomic Observation of Recurrent Hiatal Hernia: Recurrence or Disease Progression?

BACKGROUND

Recurrence after hiatal hernia repair is common. The causes are uncertain. Our observation is the site of recurrence is primarily the nonsutured or nonreinforced anterior-left lateral portion of the hiatus. Our aim was to assess the distribution of hiatal hernia recurrence location as a basis for developing a theory of recurrence.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent repair of recurrent hiatal hernias from March 2012 to December 2019 were reviewed. Data collected included age, sex, date of operation, location of hiatal hernia recurrence, operative approach, method of hiatal hernia repair, fundoplication performed, need for gastrectomy, and additional procedures.

RESULTS

One hundred and eight consecutive patients were studied. The distribution of recurrence locations was as follows: anterior 67%, posterior 12%, and circumferential 21%. Foreshortened esophagus was a contributing factor in 12%. Median time from the original repair to recurrence was 1.5 years (interquartile range 0.9 to 3.75 years) for posterior recurrences, 2.75 years (interquartile range 1.15 to 8.5 years) for circumferential recurrences, and 3.25 years (interquartile range 1.38 to 10 years) for anterior recurrences. Recurrences were repaired in a variety of techniques, depending on the clinical circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Hiatal hernia recurrences due to failure of the crural closure were less common, but early, recurrences. The majority of recurrences were due to stretching of the hiatus anterior and to the left of the esophagus. We theorize that the pathophysiology of late hiatal hernia recurrence is widening of the anterior and left lateral portion of the hiatus secondary to repeated stress from differential pressures that eventually overcomes the tensile strength of the hiatus.

Salvage Options for Fundoplication Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) affects millions of people worldwide. Many patients with medically refractory symptoms ultimately undergo antireflux surgery, most often with a laparoscopic fundoplication. Symptoms related to GERD may persist or recur. Revisional surgery is necessary in some patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

A reoperative fundoplication is the most commonly performed salvage procedure for failed fundoplication. Although redo fundoplication has been reported to have increased risk of morbidity compared with primary cases, increasing experience with the minimally invasive approach to reoperative surgery has significantly improved patient outcome with acceptable resolution of reflux symptoms in the majority of patients. Recurrence of reflux symptoms after an initial fundoplication requires a thorough work-up and a thoughtful approach. While reoperative fundoplication is the most common procedure performed, there are other options and the treatment should be tailored to the patient, their history, and the mechanism of fundoplication failure.

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.

Treatment of giant paraesophageal hernia: pro laparoscopic approach

PURPOSE

Giant paraesophageal hernias (GPEH) are relatively uncommon and account for less than 5% of all primary hiatal hernias. Giant Secondary GPEH can be observed after surgery involving hiatal orifice opening, such as esophagectomy, antireflux surgery, and hiatal hernia repair. Surgical treatment is challenging, and there are still residual controversies regarding the laparoscopic approach, even though a reduced morbidity and mortality, as well as a shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated.

METHODS

A Pubmed electronic search of the literature including articles published between 1992 and 2016 was conducted using the following key words: hiatal hernia, paraesophageal hernias, mesh, laparoscopy, intrathoracic stomach, gastric volvulus, diaphragmatic hernia.

RESULTS

Given the risks of non-operative management, GPEH surgical repair is indicated in symptomatic patients. Technical steps for primary hernia repair include hernia reduction and sac excision, correct repositioning of the gastroesophageal junction, crural repair, and fundoplication. For secondary hernias, the surgical technique varies according to hernia type and components and according to the approach used during the first surgery. There is an ongoing debate regarding the best and safest method to close the hiatal orifice. The laparoscopic approach has demonstrated a lower postoperative morbidity and mortality, and a shorter hospital stay as compared to the open approach. A high recurrence rate has been reported for primary GPEH repair. However, recent studies suggest that recurrence does not reduce symptomatic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic treatment of primary and secondary GPEH is safe and feasible in elective and emergency settings, especially in high-volume centers. The procedure is still challenging. The main steps are well defined. However, there is still room for improvement to lower the recurrence rate.