Erosion of a composite PTFE/ePTFE mesh after hiatal hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19:175-177. [PMID: 19390288 DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181a11926]

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.

Quality of life following repair of large hiatal hernia is not influenced by the use of mesh-Longer-term follow-up from a randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

The use of prosthetic mesh in laparoscopic repair of large hiatus hernias remains controversial. Clinical and quality of life outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of mesh versus suture repair previously showed few differences at early follow-up. This study evaluated longer-term quality of life outcomes from that trial.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentre, double blind randomized controlled trial assessed three methods of repair for large hiatus hernias: sutures-only versus absorbable mesh versus non-absorbable mesh. Quality of life was assessed using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire which was completed preoperatively and then at 3, 6, 12 months following surgery and annually thereafter. SF-36 outcomes were compared across the three repair techniques at longer-term follow-up (3-6 years), and to earlier baseline and 12-month outcomes.

RESULTS

126 patients were randomized; 43-suture-only, 41-absorbable mesh and 42-non-absorbable mesh. Questionnaires were completed by 118 patients preoperatively, 115 at 12 months and 98 at longer-term follow-up (median 5 years). There were no significant differences between the repair techniques for the subscale and composite scores at longer-term follow-up. The mental component score improved significantly after surgery and was sustained across follow-up for all techniques. The physical component score also improved significantly but was lower at longer-term follow-up compared to the 12-month follow up in both mesh groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical repair of large hiatus hernias provides sustained long-term improvement in quality of life. The addition of mesh does not improve quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000725662.

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.

Complications, caused by application of the net implants in the hiatal hernias plasty

Objective. Studying of complications, connected with application of the net implants in patients with large hiatal hernias. Materials and methods. Retrospective investigation was conducted with objective to study complications, connected with application of the net implants in patients with large hiatal hernias, operated in the clinic during period from 2008 to 2018 yr. Of 1168 patients operated on and suffering gastro-esophageal reflux disease as well as hiatal hernias, 817 have had large hernias. In 353 patients with large hernias for strengthening of cruroraphy sutures the net implants were applied. There were used low-weighted implant-net Ultrapro, the composite net Parietex, self-fixating surgical net ProGrip, absorbable net Vicryl, polytetrafluoroethylene net with nitinol carcass, biological net Bio-A. All the patients symptoms were registered, and the quality of life studied. Results. Complications, caused by the net implants impact, were revealed in 17 (1.5%) patients. In all 17 patients the esophageal structuring have occurred due to pronounced cicatrization in region of the net implant installation. In 6 patients dysphagia due to the net ingrowth into esophageal tissue was observed, and in 2 – chronic inflammatory process in place of the net installation. One patient have had small esophageal perforation with restricted mediastinitis. In 3 patients, in whom the polytetrafluoroethylene nets were installed, their migration into esophageal lumen was revealed. Reoperations were done in all 17 patients. In 7 patients the net was removed completely. In 1 patient the net was removed and mediastinum drained. In 3 patients, in whom polytetrafluoroethylene nets have migrated into esophageal lumen, they were removed endoscopically with further installation of special stents. Results of reoperations were estimated as good in 15 patients. In 2 patients after reoperations dysphagia was observed, which needed a second time balloon dilatation and installation of stent in 1 of them. Conclusion. Nonabsorbable nets ought to be applied with high technical accuracy, it is necessary to prevent their contact with the esophagus. Application of the polytetrafluoroethylene nets with nitinol carcass for plasty of large hiatal hernias must be forbidden.

Laparoscopic mesh repair and Toupet fundoplication for parahiatal hernia complicated by sliding hiatal hernia: A case report

Introduction

The parahiatal hernia is a rare type of diaphragmatic hernia in adults. Although there have been occasional reports of parahiatal hernias, few have reported simultaneous laparoscopic mesh repair of a parahiatal hernia with a hiatal hernia. This report describes laparoscopic mesh repair and fundoplication for a parahiatal hernia combined with an esophageal hiatal hernia.

Presentation of case

A 39-year-old woman presented with left-side postprandial abdominal pain. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed a parahiatal hernia and sliding hiatal hernia. Computed tomography (CT) showed that the stomach had prolapsed into the thorax from the outside of the left diaphragm. The preoperative diagnosis was parahiatal hernia with a hernial sac complicated by sliding hiatal hernia. Laparoscopic mesh repair was planned. The stomach had prolapsed on the left side of the esophagus and was extruded. The diagnosis of a parahiatal hernia with a hernial sac complicated by a sliding hiatal hernia was confirmed. The esophageal hiatal hernia was repaired using two non-absorbable sutures. The congenital defect was further reinforced with mesh fixed to the orifice of the adjacent parahiatal hernia. We performed Toupet fundoplication to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and sutured the right diaphragmatic crus and stomach to prevent migration. The patient was discharged home on postoperative day 5.

Conclusion

We encountered a patient with a parahiatal hernia complicated by a sliding hiatal hernia. The parahiatal hernia can be diagnosed by CT imaging. Preoperative diagnostic imaging can lead to appropriate treatment.

•

The parahiatal hernia is a rare type of diaphragmatic hernia in adults

•

This report describes laparoscopic mesh repair and fundoplication for a parahiatal hernia combined with an esophageal hiatal hernia.

•

The parahiatal hernia can be diagnosed by CT imaging and preoperative diagnostic imaging can lead to appropriate treatment

Mesh Versus No Mesh for Cruroplasty

This review describes the evolution of hiatal hernia repair for the past several decades: From the use of a primary tissue repair only, the subsequent inclusion of synthetic mesh and its complications, to current day indications for mesh use. We will highlight the recent research in biologic and composite meshes as well as the ongoing limitations in studying their efficacy. Finally, we will describe our institutional indications and surgical technique practices in the utilization of biologic mesh.

A Polymer-Biologic Hybrid Hernia Construct: Review of Data and Early Experiences

Surgical mesh reinforcement of the human abdominal wall has been found to reduce the chance of recurrence in hernia repairs. While traditionally polymer meshes have been used in hernia repair, alternative mesh options have been engineered to prevent the inflammatory foreign body response invoked by polymers. A reinforced tissue matrix (RTM) mesh has been developed by embedding a polymer within a decellularized extracellular matrix. This combination has been attributed to the recruitment of host cells, a pro-healing response, and attenuation of the foreign body response. This has been observed to lead to the regeneration of functional tissue within the repair site that is reinforced by the polymer to offload abdominal pressures over time. This manuscript presents the review of OviTex, an RTM, in several types of hernia repair. The authors have found that the use of RTM in hernia repair is effective in preventing foreign body response, promoting wound healing, and providing reinforcement to lower the risk of hernia recurrence.

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.

New Ovine Polymer-Reinforced Bioscaffold in Hiatal Hernia Repair

Background and Objectives

Biologic and resorbable synthetic materials are used commonly for crural repair reinforcement during laparoscopic hiatal herniorrhaphy. Recently, an ovine polymer-reinforced bioscaffold (OPRBS) has been developed for reinforcement of abdominal wall and hiatal herniorrhaphies. This is the first reported series on use of OPRBS in hiatal hernia repairs.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted for consecutive series of patients (n = 25) undergoing laparoscopic or open hiatal herniorrhaphy between August 2016 and May 2017. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities and symptoms, details of operation, complications, and postoperative followup.

Results

Laparoscopic repair was completed in 23 of 24 patients. Reinforcement with OPRBS was accomplished in all cases. Fundoplication was constructed in 24 of 25 patients (96%). Mean followup was 14.2 months. Good-to-excellent symptom control or resolution has been achieved for heartburn (95%), dysphagia (94.7%), regurgitation (100%), nausea and vomiting (100%), dyspnea (100%), and chest pain or discomfort (85.7%). Postoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy with dilation resulted in resolution of persistent postoperative dysphagia in two patients (8%). To date there have been no clinical recurrences of hiatal hernia.

Conclusion

OPRBS in hiatal hernia repair have been associated with excellent early patient outcomes in this study. OPRBS represent a new paradigm in hernia repair, as it is the first clinically available biological repair material reinforced with embroidered resorbable or permanent synthetic polymer. Relative weaknesses of the current study include the small sample size (n = 25), and short-term (mean = 14.2 months) followup. Long-term followup and additional studies will be required to confirm these findings.

Laparoscopic repair of type III/IV giant para-oesophageal herniae with biological prosthesis: a single centre experience

PURPOSE

Repair of giant paraoesophageal herniae (GPEH) is technically challenging and requires significant experience in advanced foregut surgery. Controversy continues on suture versus mesh cruroplasty with the most recent systematic review and meta-analysis putting the onus on the operating surgeon. Study aim was to review whether the biological prosthesis (non-cross-linked bovine pericardium and porcine dermis) and the technique adopted for patients with GPEH had an influence on clinical and radiological recurrences.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected data of 60 consecutive patients with confirmed 5 cm hiatus hernia and ≥ 30% stomach displacement in the thorax that were operated in the upper gastrointestinal unit of a large district general hospital between September 2010 and August 2017. Pre and post-surgery Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire [(GORD-HRQOL)] and a follow up contrast study were completed.

RESULTS

60 included 2 (3%) and 58 (97%) emergency and elective procedures respectively with a male: female ratio of 1:3, age 71* (Median) (42-89) years, BMI 29* (19-42) and 26 (43%) with ASA III/IV. Investigations confirmed 46* (37-88) mm and 42* (34-77) mm transverse and antero-posterior hiatal defect respectively with 60* (30-100)% displacement of stomach into chest. Operative time and length of stay was 180* (120-510) minutes and 2* (1-30) days respectively. One (2%) converted for bleeding and 2 (3%) peri-operative deaths. Five (8%), 5 (8%) and 4 (7%) have dysphagia, symptomatic and radiological recurrences respectively. GORD-HRQOL recorded preoperatively was 27* (10-39) dropping significantly postoperatively to 0* (0-21) (P < 0.005) with 95% patient satisfaction at a follow up of 60* (36-84) months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our technique of laparoscopic GPEH repair with biological prosthesis is safe with a reduced symptomatic and radiological recurrence and an acceptable morbidity and mortality.

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.

Mesh cruroplasty in laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernias is not associated with better long-term outcomes compared to primary repair

BACKGROUND

Equipoise still exists regarding routine mesh cruroplasty during laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia (PEH). We aimed to determine whether selective mesh cruroplasty is associated with differences in recurrence and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We compared symptom outcomes (n = 688) and radiographic recurrences (n = 101; at least 10% [or 2 cm] of stomach above hiatus) for 795 non-emergent PEH repair with fundoplication (n = 106 with mesh).

RESULTS

Heartburn, regurgitation, epigastric pain, and anti-reflux medication use decreased significantly in both groups while postoperative dysphagia (mesh; p = 0.14), and bloating (non-mesh; p = 0.32), were unchanged. Radiographic recurrence rates were similar (15 mesh [22%] versus 86 non-mesh [17%]; p = 0.32; median 27 [IQR 14, 53] months), but was associated with surgical dissatisfaction (13% vs 4%; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Selective mesh cruroplasty was not associated with differences in symptom outcomes or radiographic recurrence rates during laparoscopic PEH repair. Radiographic recurrence was associated with dissatisfaction, emphasizing the need for continued focus on reducing recurrences.

From intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair to preperitoneal onlay mesh repair

Laparoscopic repair for ventral and incisional hernias was first reported in the early 1990s. It uses intraperitoneal only mesh placement to achieve a tension-free repair of the hernia. However, in recent years, there has been greater concern about long-term complication involving intraperitoneal mesh placement. Many case reports and case series have found evidence of mesh adhesion, mesh fistulation, and mesh migration into hollow organs including the esophagus, small bowel, and large bowel, resulting in various major acute abdominal events. Subsequent management of these complications may require major surgery that is technically demanding and difficult; in such cases, laparotomy and bowel resection have often been performed. Because of these significant, but not common, adverse events, many surgeons favor open sublay repair for ventral and incisional hernias. Investigators are therefore searching for a laparoscopic approach for ventral and incisional hernias that might overcome the mesh-induced visceral complications seen after intraperitoneal only mesh placement repair. Laparoscopic preperitoneal onlay mesh is one such approach. This article will explore the fundamental of intraperitoneal only mesh placement and its problems, the currently available peritoneal visceral-compatible meshes, and upcoming developments in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. The technical details of preperitoneal onlay mesh, as well as its potential advantages and disadvantages, will also be discussed.

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.

Laparoscopic repair of hiatus hernia: Does mesh type influence outcome? A meta-analysis and European survey study

BACKGROUND

Synthetic mesh (SM) has been used in the laparoscopic repair of hiatus hernia but remains controversial due to reports of complications, most notably esophageal erosion. Biological mesh (BM) has been proposed as an alternative to mitigate this risk. The aim of this study is to establish the incidence of complications, recurrence and revision surgery in patients following suture (SR), SM or BM repair and undertake a survey of surgeons to establish a perspective of current practice.

METHODS

An electronic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane database was performed. Pooled odds ratios (PORs) were calculated for discrete variables. To survey current practice an online questionnaire was sent to emails registered to the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included, comprising 676 patients (310 with SR, 214 with SM and 152 with BM). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications with mesh compared to SR (P = 0.993). Mesh significantly reduced overall recurrence rates compared to SR [14.5 vs. 24.5 %; POR = 0.36 (95 % CI 0.17-0.77); P = 0.009]. Overall recurrence rates were reduced in the SM compared to BM groups (12.6 vs. 17.1 %), and similarly compared to the SR group, the POR for recurrence was lower in the SM group than the BM group [0.30 (95 % CI 0.12-0.73); P = 0.008 vs. 0.69 (95 % CI 0.26-1.83); P = 0.457]. Regarding surgical technique 503 survey responses were included. Mesh reinforcement of the crura was undertaken by 67 % of surgeons in all or selected cases with 67 % of these preferring synthetic mesh to absorbable mesh. One-fifth of the respondents had encountered mesh erosion in their career.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SM and BM reduce rates of recurrence compared to SR, with SM proving most effective. Surgical practice is varied, and there remains insufficient evidence regarding the optimum technique for the repair of hiatal hernia.

An unusual cause for halitosis

This report describes an unusual cause for halitosis and an unusual treatment for the underlying problem. Halitosis is a symptom which can result from a diverse range of underlying pathologies, most frequently those affecting the oral cavity or respiratory tract. Uncommonly, it arises due to pathology within the upper gastrointestinal tract. The case of a patient presenting with severe persistent halitosis attributable to mesh erosion occurring 8 years after redo laparoscopic hiatus hernia repair is described. Full external healing of the erosion tract was observed such that no symptomatic oesophageal perforation resulted. Mesh erosion is typically managed with surgical intervention. In this case, the infected mesh was successfully removed endoscopically.

Quality of Life Following Repair of Large Hiatal Hernia is Improved but not Influenced by Use of Mesh: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is the treatment of choice for repair of large hiatus hernia, but can be followed by recurrence. Repair with prosthetic mesh has been recommended to prevent recurrence, although complications following mesh repair have generated disagreement about whether or not mesh should be used. The early objective and clinical results of a randomized trial of repair with mesh versus sutures have been reported, and revealed few differences. In the current study, we evaluated quality of life outcomes within this trial at follow-up to 2 years.

METHODS

In a multicenter prospective double-blind randomized trial three methods for repair of large hiatus hernia were compared: sutures versus repair with absorbable mesh (Surgisis) versus non-absorbable (Timesh). Quality of life assessment using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire was undertaken at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. SF-36 outcomes (8 individual scales and 2 composite scales) were determined for each group, and compared between groups, and across different follow-up points.

RESULTS

126 patients were enrolled-43 sutures, 41 absorbable mesh and 42 non-absorbable mesh. 115 (91.3%) completed a preoperative questionnaire, and 113 (89.7%) completed the post-operative questionnaire at 3 months, 116 (92.1%) at 6 months, 114 (90.5%) at 12 months, and 91 (72.2%) at 24 months. The SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) improved significantly following surgery, and this improvement was sustained across 24 months follow-up (p < 0.001 for PCS and MCS at each follow-up point). There were no significant differences between the groups for the component scores or the eight SF-36 subscale scores at each follow-up time. 29 individuals had a recurrence at 6 months follow-up, of which 9 were symptomatic. The PCS were higher in patients with recurrence versus without (p < 0.01), and in patients with a symptomatic recurrence versus asymptomatic recurrence versus no recurrence (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SF-36 measured quality of life improved significantly after repair of large hiatal hernia at up to 2 years follow-up, and there were no differences in outcome for the different repair techniques. The use of mesh versus no mesh in repair of large hiatal hernia did not influence quality of life.

Impact of crural relaxing incisions, Collis gastroplasty, and non-cross-linked human dermal mesh crural reinforcement on early hiatal hernia recurrence rates

BACKGROUND

Hernia recurrence is the leading form of failure after antireflux surgery and may be secondary to unrecognized tension on the crural repair or from a foreshortened esophagus. Mesh reinforcement has proven beneficial for repair of hernias at other sites, but the use of mesh at the hiatus remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of hiatal hernia repair with human dermal mesh reinforcement of the crural closure in combination with tension reduction techniques when necessary.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who had hiatal hernia repair using AlloMax Surgical Graft (Davol), a human dermal biologic mesh. Objective follow-up was with videoesophagram and/or upper endoscopy at 3 months postoperatively and annually.

RESULTS

There were 82 patients with a median age of 63 years. The majority of operations (85%) were laparoscopic primary repairs of a paraesophageal hernia with a fundoplication. The crura were closed primarily in all patients and reinforced with an AlloMax Surgical Graft. A crural relaxing incision was used in 12% and a Collis gastroplasty in 28% of patients. There was no mesh-related morbidity and no mortality. Median objective follow-up was 5 months, but 15 patients had follow-up at 1 or more years. A recurrent hernia was found in 3 patients (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tension-reducing techniques in combination with human biologic mesh crural reinforcement provide excellent early results with no mesh-related complications. Long-term follow-up will define the role of these techniques and this biologic mesh for hiatal hernia repair.

The choice of primary repair or mesh repair for paraesophageal hernia: a decision analysis based on utility scores

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists on the use of mesh in the repair of paraesophageal hernias (PEH). This debate centers around the type of mesh used, its value in preventing recurrence, its short- and long-term complications, and the consequences of those complications compared with primary repair. Decision analysis is a method to account for the important aspects of a clinical decision. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the addition of mesh would be superior in PEH repair.

METHODS

A decision analysis model of the choice between primary repair and mesh repair of a PEH was constructed. The essential features of the decision were the rate of perioperative complications, PEH recurrence rate, reoperation rate after recurrence, rate of symptomatic recurrence, and type of outcome after reoperation. The literature was reviewed to obtain data for the decision analysis and the average rates used in the baseline analysis. A utility score was used as the outcome measure, with a perfect outcome receiving a score of 100 and death 0. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine if changing the rates of recurrence or reoperation changed the dominant treatment.

RESULTS

Using the baseline analysis, mesh repair was slightly superior to primary repair (utility score 99.59 vs 99.12, respectively). However, if recurrence rates were similar, primary repair would be slightly superior; whereas if reoperation rates were similar, mesh repair would be superior. Using sensitivity analysis, there are combinations of recurrence rates and reoperation rates that would make one repair superior to the other. However, these differences are relatively small.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on what the decision-maker accepts as the recurrence and reoperation rates for these types of repair, either mesh or primary repair may be the treatment of choice. However, the differences between the two are small, and, perhaps, clinically inconsequential.

Preliminary study of hiatal hernia repair using polyglycolic acid: trimethylene carbonate mesh

BACKGROUND

Repairing large hiatal hernias using mesh has been shown to reduce recurrence. Drawbacks to mesh include added time to place and secure the prosthesis as well as complications such as esophageal erosion. We used a laparoscopic technique for repair of hiatal hernias (HH) >5cm, incorporating primary crural repair with onlay fixation of a synthetic polyglycolicacid:trimethylene carbonate (PGA:TMC) absorbable tissue reinforcement. The purpose of this report is to present short-term follow-up data.

METHODS

Patients with hiatal hernia types I-III and defects >5cm were included. Primary closure of the hernia defect was performed using interrupted nonpledgeted sutures, followed by PGA:TMC mesh onlay fixed with absorbable tacks. A fundoplication was then performed. Evaluation of patients was carried out at routine follow-up visits. Outcomes measured were symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or other symptoms suspicious for recurrence. Patients exhibiting these complaints underwent further evaluation including radiographic imaging and endoscopy.

RESULTS

Follow-up data were analyzed on 11 patients. Two patients were male; 9 were female. The mean age was 60 years. The mean length of follow-up was 13 months. There were no complications related to the mesh. One patient suffered from respiratory failure, one from gas bloat syndrome, and another had a superficial port-site infection. One patient developed a recurrent hiatal hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small series, laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernias >5cm with onlay fixation of PGA:TMC tissue reinforcement has short-term outcomes with a reasonably low recurrence rate. However, due to the preliminary and nonrandomized nature of the data, no strong comparison can be made with other types of mesh repairs. Additional data collection is warranted.

Diaphragmatic rupture: Is management with biological mesh feasible?

INTRODUCTION

Blunt diaphragmatic rupture is a rare event that may occur after traumatic injury. Due to its rarity and difficulty in diagnosing, delayed detection of diaphragmatic injuries can occur. Management involves repair of the diaphragmatic defect via trans-thoracic and/or trans-abdominal approaches. Most small repairs may be repaired primarily, larger defects have been historically repaired with mesh.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We report a case series of five patients with diaphragmatic injuries all repaired with biologic mesh via both trans-thoracic and trans-abdominal approaches.

DISCUSSION

Delayed presentation is the single most important contributor to increased morbidity and mortality in patients with blunt diaphragmatic rupture. Our case series corroborates other findings that patients with blunt diaphragmatic ruptures are at high risk for infection and thus may be repaired with use of biologic mesh versus the traditional use of synthetic mesh. This can be done without high rates of recurrence or complications from use of biologic mesh.

CONCLUSION

In our series, we successfully repaired 5 diaphragmatic defects with the use of biologic mesh. With follow-up as much as 4 years out, none of our patients have had an infectious complication with the use biologic mesh and there is no evidence of recurrence or eventration. The use of biologic mesh is an acceptable alternative to the traditional use of synthetic mesh in the repair of both acute and chronic diaphragmatic defects.

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.

The safety of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernia

BACKGROUND

Biologic mesh is widely used for repair of large, complicated hiatal hernias. Recently, there have been reports of complications after its implantation. We studied the course of a large group of patients who had undergone hiatal hernia repair with use of biologic mesh to determine the rate of immediate and late complications related to its use.

METHODS

All patients who had biologic mesh placed at the hiatus and who had been followed for at least 1 year were included. Perioperative data were reviewed, and a questionnaire was administered, designed to identify symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux, other symptoms such as dysphagia, and all other operative or endoscopic interventions that occurred after mesh implantation. In addition, postoperative radiologic and endoscopic studies were reviewed to assess signs of complications related to use of mesh.

RESULTS

There were 126 patients eligible for the study. We were able to contact 73 of these patients, at median follow-up of 45 months. No mesh-related complications were found. The frequency and severity of heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia improved significantly compared with preoperative values, and 89% of the patients reported good to excellent results in terms of overall satisfaction. Six patients recorded worsening of dysphagia postoperatively, but after careful work-up and review of each individual case, no case seemed to be directly related to the mesh. No erosions, strictures, or other complications directly related to use of mesh were found. One patient required reoperation due to hiatal hernia recurrence with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernias appears safe. There were no major complications related to the mesh, and overall satisfaction with the operation was very good.

Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with acellular dermal matrix cruroplasty

This study suggests that laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with acellular dermal matrix Cruroplasty is an effective method of repairing symptomatic paraesophageal hernias with a low perioperative morbidity.

Background:

Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR) has been shown to be both safe and efficacious. Compulsory operative steps include reduction of the stomach from the mediastinum, resection of the mediastinal hernia sac, ensuring an appropriate intraabdominal esophageal length, and crural closure. The use of mesh materials in the repair of hiatal hernias remains controversial. Synthetic mesh may reduce hernia recurrences, but may increase postoperative dysphagia and result in esophageal erosion. Human acellular dermal matrix (HADM) may reduce the incidence of hernia recurrence with reduced complications compared with synthetic mesh.

Methods:

A retrospective review of all cases of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using HADM from December 2008 through March 2010 at a single institution was performed evaluating demographic information, BMI, operative times, length of stay, and complications.

Discussion:

Forty-six LPEHRs with HADM were identified. The mean age of patients was 60.3 years (±13.9); BMI 30.3 (±5.3); operative time 182 minutes (±56); and length of stay 2.6 days (±1.9). Nine of 46 (19.6%) patients experienced perioperative complications, including subcutaneous emphysema without pneumothorax (n=2), urinary retention (n=1), COPD exacerbation (n=2), early dysphagia resolving before discharge (n=1), esophageal perforation (n=1), delayed gastric perforation occurring 30 days postoperatively associated with gas bloat syndrome (n=1), and PEG site abscess (n=1). There were 2 clinically recurrent hernias (4.3%). Radiographic recurrences occurred in 2 of 26 patients (7.7%). Six of 46 (13%) patients reported persistent dysphagia.

Conclusion:

LPEHR with HADM crural reinforcement is an effective method of repairing symptomatic paraesophageal hernias with low perioperative morbidity. Recurrences occur infrequently with this technique. No mesh-related complications were seen in this series.

Laparoscopic repair of esophageal hiatal hernia

This study was to appraise safety and feasibility of laparoscopic approach and investigate the clinical effects of laparoscopic tension-free repair of esophageal hiatal hernia using mesh. From August 2006 to July 2009, 24 patients with esophageal hiatal hernia underwent laparoscopic repair. Twenty-three patients received laparoscopic tension-free repair using mesh, at the same time, Toupet or Dor partial fundoplication was performed. One patient was converted to open surgery. The average operating time was 90 min (70-210 min) and the blood loss was between 10-110 mL. There was no death. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (3-30 days). During a follow-up period of 12-20 months (mean 15 months), there was no recurrence of the hernia, and no complication with use of mesh. The present study suggested that laparoscopic approach was secure and minimally invasive operation for esophageal hiatal hernia and the use of mesh could reduce recurrence rate.

Composite mesh migration into the sigmoid colon following ventral hernia repair

Ventral hernia repair is frequently performed with one of a number of mesh products, usually with good results. The current emphasis on laparoscopic repair has resulted in multiple composite mesh products for use in the peritoneal cavity. The addition of a second layer of more inert material to the mesh is intended to prevent adhesions with the underlying viscera, and multiple studies demonstrate effectiveness in doing this. Despite this, occasional complications may still present. We present the case of a 65-year-old man coming to our clinic 5 years after a third ventral hernia repair/revision with composite mesh.