Mesh erosion as a complication of laparoscopic fundoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure: report of a case. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19:e51-e54. [PMID: 19390264 DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181979a45]

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.

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.

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.

Hiatal hernia repair: prevention of mesh erosion and migration into the esophagogastric junction

Background:

Erosion and migration into the esophagogastric lumen after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair with mesh placement has been published.

Aim:

To present surgical maneuvers that seek to diminish the risk of this complication.

Method:

We suggest mobilizing the hernia sac from the mediastinum and taking it down to the abdominal position with its blood supply intact in order to rotate it behind and around the abdominal esophagus. The purpose is to cover the on-lay mesh placed in “U” fashion to reinforce the crus suture.

Results:

We have performed laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in 173 patients (total group). Early postoperative complications were observed in 35 patients (27.1%) and one patient died (0.7%) due to a massive lung thromboembolism. One hundred twenty-nine patients were followed-up for a mean of 41+28months. Mesh placement was performed in 79 of these patients. The remnant sac was rotated behind the esophagus in order to cover the mesh surface. In this group, late complications were observed in five patients (2.9%). We have not observed mesh erosion or migration to the esophagogastric lumen.

Conclusion:

The proposed technique should be useful for preventing erosion and migration into the esophagus.

Late esophageal wall injury after mesh repair for large esophageal hiatal hernia: a case report

Background

Plication of an esophageal hiatus during surgery for esophageal hiatal hernia is a common practice; however, a mesh may be used if the hiatus is markedly enlarged. Recently, various late complications occurring as a result of mesh-induced esophageal and/or gastric wall injuries have been reported.

Case presentation

A 71-year-old woman presented at a neighborhood clinic in November 2010 with chief complaints of respiratory distress on exertion and heartburn. She was diagnosed as having a large esophageal hiatal hernia and was treated at our hospital using a laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication with mesh repair of the esophageal hiatus. Two years and 1 month after the operation, the patient complained of a bowel obstruction. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed that part of the mesh had extruded into the esophageal lumen, resulting in ulceration and stricture of the esophageal wall. Endoscopic balloon dilatation failed to improve the esophageal stricture. In July 2012, the patient underwent a lower esophagectomy with proximal gastrectomy and was discharged on the 25th hospital day.

Conclusions

We experienced a rare case requiring surgical treatment for a mesh-induced esophageal wall injury after surgery for a giant esophageal hiatal hernia. The selection of a soft, durable mash and its firm securement at a position distant from the gastrointestinal wall may be important to avoid late esophageal wall injury.

Endoscopic management of erosion after banded bariatric procedures

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic materials wrapped around a portion of the stomach have been used to provide gastric restriction in bariatric surgery for many years. Intraluminal erosion of adjustable and nonadjustable gastric bands typically occurs many years after placement and results in various symptoms. Endoscopic management of gastric band erosion has been described and allows for optimal patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

We will describe our methods and experience with endoscopic management of intraluminal gastric band erosions after bariatric procedures.

SETTING

University hospital in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our bariatric surgery database identified patients undergoing removal of gastric bands. A chart review was then undertaken to confirm erosion of prosthetic material into the gastrointestinal tract. Baseline characteristics, operative reports, and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were identified with an eroded gastric band: 11 after banded gastric bypass, 3 after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), and 2 after vertical banded gastroplasty. All patients were successfully treated with endoscopic removal of the prosthetic materials using either endoscopic scissors or ligation of the banding material with off-label use of a mechanical lithotripter device. Complications included a postoperative gastrointestinal bleed requiring repeat endoscopy, 1 patient with asymptomatic pneumoperitoneum requiring observation, and 1 with seroma at the site of LAGB port removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic management of intraluminal prosthetic erosion after gastric banded bariatric procedures can be safe and effective and should be considered when treating this complication. Erosion of the prosthetic materials inside the gastric lumen allows for potential endoscopic removal without free intraabdominal perforation. Endoscopic devices designed for dividing eroded LAGBs may help standardize and increase utilization of this approach.

Laparoscopic surgical treatment of esophageal hiatal hernia

Types II, III and IV esophageal hiatal hernia (EHH) which presents obvious symptoms or leads to potentially fatal complications requires surgical treatment. Laparoscopy has been used to repair EHH in the last two decades globally and proved to be minimally invasive compared to conventional open surgery. This review summarizes current status and prospectives of laparoscopic application in EHH treatment. The published articles on minimally invasive laparoscopic surgical treatment of EHH in PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were retrieved and analyzed. From 1992 to 2015, 86 English articles involving a total of 4771 patients receiving laparoscopic treatment for EHH were retrieved. Perioperative information including safety and feasibility of procedure, postoperative complications, and short/long-term outcome after laparoscopic repair was retrospectively analyzed. Laparoscopic surgical treatment of EHH is a safe, feasible and minimally invasive procedure with fast recovery after repair, low postoperative morbidity and recurrence.

Use of mesh for hiatal hernia repair: a survey of SAGES members

BACKGROUND

Mesh use during hiatal hernia repair (HHR) has been suggested to be safe and effective. Concern has been raised about the risk of mesh-related complications, and the higher risk of complications if revisional hiatal surgery is undertaken after mesh has been used. Available data have not established a clear role for mesh in HHR. To assess surgeons' adoption of the use of mesh for HHR, SAGES members were surveyed regarding their practice related to mesh use for HHR.

METHODS

Between April and September 2010, an internet-based survey tool was used to survey SAGES members. Potential participants were contacted via e-mail and invited to complete the survey. Of the 5,323 attempted contacts, 5,024 reached active e-mail accounts. From these, 2,518 members responded (50% response rate).

RESULTS

The majority of respondents currently perform HHR (69%), but only 18% perform more than 20 per year. Of those who perform HHR, 94% use a laparoscopic approach for the majority of repairs. Whereas 25% of surgeons use mesh for the majority of repairs, 23% of surgeons never use mesh. When mesh is used, an absorbable mesh is most commonly used (67%). An onlay technique is used by 93% of respondents. Only 7% of surgeons who have been in practice more than 20 years use mesh compared with 59% of surgeons in practice less than 10 years. Fifty-seven percent of surgeons have never performed revisional foregut surgery on a patient with prior mesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of surgeons have used mesh for HHR, it is the minority who use it routinely, with younger surgeons more likely to use mesh than older surgeons. Absorbable mesh is most commonly used. When mesh is used, an onlay technique is most commonly used. There is no clear accepted use of mesh in hiatal hernia repair.

Paraoesophageal herniation: a review

BACKGROUND

Paraoesophageal hiatus herniae repair can represent a formidable challenge. Afflicted patients tend to be elderly with multiple infirmities often with cardio-pulmonary dysfunction. They may present acutely with protracted vomiting and concurrent biochemical imbalances and it is a technically demanding procedure. There are several debated issues regarding operative technique. This paper will attempt to explain the nature of paraoesophageal hiatus herniae and reviews the recommended pre-operative investigations and operative strategies available.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from Pubmed and suitable clinical papers were selected for review. When attempting to address whether meshes should be included routinely, electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library. A systematic search was done with the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms: 'paraoesophageal hernia repair' AND 'mesh'. In PubMed and Embase the search was carried out with the limits 'humans', 'English language', 'all adult: 19+ years' and 'published between 1990 and 2010'. A manual cross-reference search of the bibliographies of included papers was carried out to identify additional potentially relevant studies.

RESULTS

Firm conclusions are difficult to draw due to the diverse nature of both the disorder and the presentation however principals of management can be suggested. Similarly, there is no conclusive proof of the most effective operative technique and therefore the options are described.

CONCLUSION

Due to the relative lack of cases encountered at smaller institutions, there is a good argument for centralisation of these cases into regional centres to allow research and facilitate improvements in care.