Intraluminal mesh erosion after prosthetic hiatoplasty: incidence, management, and outcomes

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.

Mesh migration into esophagogastric junction after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair; how to prevent it? A case report

Although the use of mesh reinforcement during large hiatal hernia repair may reduce the rate of recurrence, various mesh-related complications have been reported. A 65-year-old woman presented with dysphagia. The patient was diagnosed with a large hiatal hernia and treated with laparoscopic fundoplication and Collis gastroplasty with mesh repair. Six months after surgery, the patient presented with dysphagia and vomiting. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed migration of mesh material into the esophagogastric junction. We performed a proximal gastrectomy with mesh removal. The patient was discharged without any postoperative complications. Herein, we encountered a rare case requiring surgical treatment to resolve mesh-induced esophagogastric perforation after hiatal hernia repair. Mesh-associated complications, such as erosion or migration, should be considered as they may be more common than previously reported. Additionally, these complications are currently underscored in clinical practice. Regarding mesh applications, symptoms of mesh-related complications, such as dysphagia, should be carefully monitored for early detection.

Surgical treatment of large and complicated hiatal hernias with the new resorbable mesh with hydrogel barrier (Phasix™ ST): a preliminary study

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the new monofilament fully resorbable mesh with hydrogel barrier (Phasix™ ST), for large and complex hiatal hernia repair. Between December 2017 and December 2020, 60 patients with large or complicated hiatal hernia were treated (40 robotic and 20 laparoscopic procedures). The mesh was placed after primary closure of the hiatal defect, in an onlay fashion around the esophagus, followed by 360^o fundoplication. Follow-up at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months from intervention included clinical evaluation and upper GI endoscopy. In cases of recurrence, radiologic survey and manometry were utilized. There were no conversions to open repair or significant postoperative incidents. Over a median follow-up of 21 months (range 3-36), no recurrences or mesh related complications were observed. From our early experience, Phasix™ ST mesh seems to be safe and effective for the reinforcement of crural defects in large and complex hiatal hernia.

Esophagectomy for Permanent Mesh Migration after Transthoracic Hiatal Hernia Repair

A 76-year-old woman with distant history of right diaphragmatic hernia repair with permanent mesh and subsequent laparotomy for mesh migration re-presents with pneumonia. On initial presentation, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and computed tomography noted a contained esophageal perforation with residual permanent mesh. Although the patient initially deferred esophagectomy, a right lower lobe lung abscess developed necessitating mesh resection and an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. We present the first case of mesh migration and erosion through esophagus and the right lower lobe of the lung. Permanent mesh should not be used during hiatal hernia repairs due to complications such as mesh erosion.

Mesh-related complications in paraoesophageal repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Paraoesophageal hernias (PEH) have a high recurrence rate, prompting surgeons to consider the use of mesh reinforcement of the hiatus. The risks and benefits of mesh augmentation in PEH repair are debated. Mesh-related complications including migration and erosion are considered in this publication.

DESIGN

A systematic literature review of articles published between 1970 and 2019 in Medline, OVID, Embase, and Springer database was conducted, identifying case reports, case series and observational studies of PEH repair reporting mesh-related complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-five case reports/series of 74 patients and 20 observational studies reporting 75 of 4200 patients with mesh complications have been included. The incidence of mesh-related erosions in this study is 0.035%. PTFE, ePTFE, composite and synthetic meshes were frequently associated with mesh erosion requiring intervention. Complete erosions are often managed endoscopically while partial erosions may require surgery and resection of the oesophagus and/or stomach.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-related complication is rare with dysphagia a common presenting feature. Mesh erosion is associated with synthetic mesh more frequently in the reported literature. A mesh registry with long-term longitudinal data would help in understanding the true incidence of mesh-related complications.