Complications of Mesh Repair in Hiatal Surgery: About 3 Cases and Review of the Literature

ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF MESH MIGRATION FOLLOWING HIATAL HERNIA REPAIR

BACKGROUND

The use of mesh in the repair of large hiatal hernias is still controversial. One of the most feared adverse events related to the use of mesh is erosion into the esophageal and gastric walls.

AIMS

To record the endoscopic treatment of mesh that has migrated into the gastric lumen after surgical treatment of hiatal hernia.

METHODS

The technical option was to wait for the progressive migration of the mesh into the gastric lumen, monitoring with upper digestive endoscopy, with removal by traction at the best time, with the aid of foreign body forceps.

RESULTS

The mesh was completely removed, and the evolution was satisfactory, without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mesh migration into the stomach who are oligosymptomatic and do not show signs of complications, endoscopic surveillance and subsequent removal of the foreign body can be successfully performed when the mesh is not adhered to the gastric wall, avoiding surgical procedures with high morbidity and mortality.

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.

Laparoscopic Large Hiatal Hernia Repair With RefluxStop: Outcomes of Six Months Follow-up in Thirty Patients

OBJECTIVE

The antireflux surgical technique with the RefluxStop device is one of the latest approaches to treating patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic hiatal hernia (HH) repair with the RefluxStop device in patients with GERD and concurrent large HH (≥4 cm).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for the first 30 patients with a large HH who consented and underwent HH surgery with the RefluxStop device. The operative technique and outcomes were evaluated to assess safety and feasibility, HH recurrence, dysphagia, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Between May 2020 and April 2022, 30 patients underwent laparoscopic HH repair with the RefluxStop device. All patients had typical symptoms of GERD, such as heartburn and regurgitation, and 15 patients (50%) had preoperative dysphagia. Median HH size was 5 cm (interquartile range, 4 to 5). Median operating time was 56 minutes (interquartile range, 52 to 63), with no intra and postoperative complications related to the device. One patient required laparotomy due to adhesions and associated bleeding when accessing the abdomen. All patients had postoperative imaging (video fluoroscopy) on postoperative day 1 and at 3 months, confirming the correct location of the RefluxStop device. One patient (3.3%) needed postoperative balloon dilatation due to severe dysphagia. Reflux symptoms (heartburn and acid regurgitation) resolved significantly in all patients ( P < 0.001) at 6 months. One episode of recurrence of HH (3.3%) occurred during the follow-up period of 6 months.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the short-term safety and feasibility of laparoscopic HH repair with the RefluxStop device in patients with large HH, with a low rate of postoperative dysphagia and subsequent improvement or resolution of reflux symptoms in all patients.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Paraesophageal Hernia: To Mesh or Not to Mesh? The Controversy Continues

Introduction: Paraesophageal hernias represent 5%-10% of all primary hiatal hernias and are becoming increasingly more common with the aging of the population. Surgical treatment includes closure of the wide hiatal gap. Achieving tension-free closure is difficult, and several studies have reported lower recurrence rates with the use of mesh reinforcement. The use of this technique, however, is controversial. Objective and Materials and Methods: Narrative revision of the literature revising: (1) evidence-based surgery and clinical studies, (2) what the experts say (Delphi), (3) complications of mesh, and (4) long-term results of laparoscopic treatment impact on the quality of life. Results: Consensus about the type of mesh continues to be elusive, and we clearly need a higher level of evidence to address the controversy. Conclusion: Mesh reinforcement can effectively reduce the hernia recurrence rate. Mesh-associated complications are few, but because they are serious, most experts recommend mesh use only in specific circumstances, particularly those in relation to the size of the hiatal defect and the quality of the crura.

Follow Up Data of MRI-Visible Synthetic Meshes for Reinforcement in Large Hiatal Hernia in Comparison to None-Mesh Repair-A Prospective Cohort Study

Background: Mesh augmentation for large hiatal hernia is still controversial because of high alleged risk of chronic reaction or shrinkage of mesh orifice surrounding the esophagus. The aim of this cohort study was to develop and establish an image analysis scheme, including 3D reconstruction, for MRI-visible meshes (DynaMesh®) to measure postoperative mesh shrinkage in order to observe potential complications. Methods: Between 12/2012 and 10/2016, n = 33 patients underwent surgery to correct symptomatic hiatal hernia (implantation indicated: n = 18). Intraoperative measurement of the hiatal surface area (HSA) > 5 cm2 was indication for mesh implantation. Early postoperatively, and during long-term follow-up, MRI was performed and patients filled out the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI score). Results: Follow-up rate was 76% (n = 25/33). Overall recurrence rate was 4% (1/25). No other patient showed reflux or dysphagia symptoms. Mesh related complications were not observed during follow-up period. Median GIQLI score of patients with mesh was 123 (range: 67-144), and 93 (52-141) for patients without mesh. Comparison of early and mid-term postoperative MRI for patients with mesh showed changes in mesh orifice size of 3% (corresponding to a slight increase in size of about 6 mm2) without any significant correlations with BMI, HSA, or patient age. Conclusion: We established an image analysis and 3D reconstruction scheme for MRI visible meshes in hiatal hernia repair. MRI images of normal clinical quality are sufficient for this analysis. Mesh orifice size in MRI-visible meshes does not seem to change at a clinically relevant level in the small cohort observed here. Further studies of large cohorts are necessary to establish if HSA >5 cm2 could be a suitable measure for indication of mesh implantation.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic large hiatus hernia repair with nonabsorbable mesh

The use of mesh to augment suture repair of large hiatus hernias remains controversial. Repair with mesh may help reduce the recurrence rate of primary repair, but concerns about the potential for serious complications, such as mesh erosion or stricturing, continue to limit its use. We aim to evaluate the long-term outcome of primary hiatus hernia repair with lightweight polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) specifically looking at rates of clinical recurrence, dysphagia, and mesh-related complications. From a prospectively maintained database, 50 consecutive patients who underwent elective primary laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair with TiMesh between January 2005 and December 2007 were identified. Case notes and postoperative endoscopy reports were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using a structured questionnaire, including a validated dysphagia score. Of the 50 patients identified, 36 (72%) were contactable for follow-up. At a median follow-up of 9 years, the majority of patients (97%) regarded their surgery as successful. Twelve patients (33%) reported a recurrence of their symptoms, but only 4 (11%) reported that their symptoms were as severe as prior to the surgery. There was no significant difference between pre- and postoperative dysphagia scores. Postoperative endoscopy reports were available for 32 patients at a median time point of 4 years postoperatively, none of which revealed any mesh-related complications. One patient had undergone a revision procedure for a recurrent hernia at another institution. In this series, primary repair of large hiatus hernia with nonabsorbable mesh was not associated with any adverse effects over time. Patient satisfaction with symptomatic outcome remained high in the long term.

International guidelines for groin hernia management

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair annually. The many different approaches, treatment indications and a significant array of techniques for groin hernia repair warrant guidelines to standardize care, minimize complications, and improve results. The main goal of these guidelines is to improve patient outcomes, specifically to decrease recurrence rates and reduce chronic pain, the most frequent problems following groin hernia repair. They have been endorsed by all five continental hernia societies, the International Endo Hernia Society and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

METHODS

An expert group of international surgeons (the HerniaSurge Group) and one anesthesiologist pain expert was formed. The group consisted of members from all continents with specific experience in hernia-related research. Care was taken to include surgeons who perform different types of repair and had preferably performed research on groin hernia surgery. During the Group's first meeting, evidence-based medicine (EBM) training occurred and 166 key questions (KQ) were formulated. EBM rules were followed in complete literature searches (including a complete search by The Dutch Cochrane database) to January 1, 2015 and to July 1, 2015 for level 1 publications. The articles were scored by teams of two or three according to Oxford, SIGN and Grade methodologies. During five 2-day meetings, results were discussed with the working group members leading to 136 statements and 88 recommendations. Recommendations were graded as "strong" (recommendations) or "weak" (suggestions) and by consensus in some cases upgraded. In the Results and summary section below, the term "should" refers to a recommendation. The AGREE II instrument was used to validate the guidelines. An external review was performed by three international experts. They recommended the guidelines with high scores. The risk factors for inguinal hernia (IH) include: family history, previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age, abnormal collagen metabolism, prostatectomy, and low body mass index. Peri-operative risk factors for recurrence include poor surgical techniques, low surgical volumes, surgical inexperience and local anesthesia. These should be considered when treating IH patients. IH diagnosis can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms. Rarely, ultrasound is necessary. Less commonly still, a dynamic MRI or CT scan or herniography may be needed. The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify IH patients for tailored treatment, research and audit. Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic male IH patients may be managed with "watchful waiting" since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery; therefore, surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients. Surgical treatment should be tailored to the surgeon's expertise, patient- and hernia-related characteristics and local/national resources. Furthermore, patient health-related, life style and social factors should all influence the shared decision-making process leading up to hernia management. Mesh repair is recommended as first choice, either by an open procedure or a laparo-endoscopic repair technique. One standard repair technique for all groin hernias does not exist. It is recommended that surgeons/surgical services provide both anterior and posterior approach options. Lichtenstein and laparo-endoscopic repair are best evaluated. Many other techniques need further evaluation. Provided that resources and expertise are available, laparo-endoscopic techniques have faster recovery times, lower chronic pain risk and are cost effective. There is discussion concerning laparo-endoscopic management of potential bilateral hernias (occult hernia issue). After patient consent, during TAPP, the contra-lateral side should be inspected. This is not suggested during unilateral TEP repair. After appropriate discussions with patients concerning results tissue repair (first choice is the Shouldice technique) can be offered. Day surgery is recommended for the majority of groin hernia repair provided aftercare is organized. Surgeons should be aware of the intrinsic characteristics of the meshes they use. Use of so-called low-weight mesh may have slight short-term benefits like reduced postoperative pain and shorter convalescence, but are not associated with better longer-term outcomes like recurrence and chronic pain. Mesh selection on weight alone is not recommended. The incidence of erosion seems higher with plug versus flat mesh. It is suggested not to use plug repair techniques. The use of other implants to replace the standard flat mesh in the Lichtenstein technique is currently not recommended. In almost all cases, mesh fixation in TEP is unnecessary. In both TEP and TAPP it is recommended to fix mesh in M3 hernias (large medial) to reduce recurrence risk. Antibiotic prophylaxis in average-risk patients in low-risk environments is not recommended in open surgery. In laparo-endoscopic repair it is never recommended. Local anesthesia in open repair has many advantages, and its use is recommended provided the surgeon is experienced in this technique. General anesthesia is suggested over regional in patients aged 65 and older as it might be associated with fewer complications like myocardial infarction, pneumonia and thromboembolism. Perioperative field blocks and/or subfascial/subcutaneous infiltrations are recommended in all cases of open repair. Patients are recommended to resume normal activities without restrictions as soon as they feel comfortable. Provided expertise is available, it is suggested that women with groin hernias undergo laparo-endoscopic repair in order to decrease the risk of chronic pain and avoid missing a femoral hernia. Watchful waiting is suggested in pregnant women as groin swelling most often consists of self-limited round ligament varicosities. Timely mesh repair by a laparo-endoscopic approach is suggested for femoral hernias provided expertise is available. All complications of groin hernia management are discussed in an extensive chapter on the topic. Overall, the incidence of clinically significant chronic pain is in the 10-12% range, decreasing over time. Debilitating chronic pain affecting normal daily activities or work ranges from 0.5 to 6%. Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is defined as bothersome moderate pain impacting daily activities lasting at least 3 months postoperatively and decreasing over time. CPIP risk factors include: young age, female gender, high preoperative pain, early high postoperative pain, recurrent hernia and open repair. For CPIP the focus should be on nerve recognition in open surgery and, in selected cases, prophylactic pragmatic nerve resection (planned resection is not suggested). It is suggested that CPIP management be performed by multi-disciplinary teams. It is also suggested that CPIP be managed by a combination of pharmacological and interventional measures and, if this is unsuccessful, followed by, in selected cases (triple) neurectomy and (in selected cases) mesh removal. For recurrent hernia after anterior repair, posterior repair is recommended. If recurrence occurs after a posterior repair, an anterior repair is recommended. After a failed anterior and posterior approach, management by a specialist hernia surgeon is recommended. Risk factors for hernia incarceration/strangulation include: female gender, femoral hernia and a history of hospitalization related to groin hernia. It is suggested that treatment of emergencies be tailored according to patient- and hernia-related factors, local expertise and resources. Learning curves vary between different techniques. Probably about 100 supervised laparo-endoscopic repairs are needed to achieve the same results as open mesh surgery like Lichtenstein. It is suggested that case load per surgeon is more important than center volume. It is recommended that minimum requirements be developed to certify individuals as expert hernia surgeon. The same is true for the designation "Hernia Center". From a cost-effectiveness perspective, day-case laparoscopic IH repair with minimal use of disposables is recommended. The development and implementation of national groin hernia registries in every country (or region, in the case of small country populations) is suggested. They should include patient follow-up data and account for local healthcare structures. A dissemination and implementation plan of the guidelines will be developed by global (HerniaSurge), regional (international societies) and local (national chapters) initiatives through internet websites, social media and smartphone apps. An overarching plan to improve access to safe IH surgery in low-resource settings (LRSs) is needed. It is suggested that this plan contains simple guidelines and a sustainability strategy, independent of international aid. It is suggested that in LRSs the focus be on performing high-volume Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia using low-cost mesh. Three chapters discuss future research, guidelines for general practitioners and guidelines for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The HerniaSurge Group has developed these extensive and inclusive guidelines for the management of adult groin hernia patients. It is hoped that they will lead to better outcomes for groin hernia patients wherever they live. More knowledge, better training, national audit and specialization in groin hernia management will standardize care for these patients, lead to more effective and efficient healthcare and provide direction for future research.

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.

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 Hiatal Hernia Repair in 221 Patients: Outcomes and Experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Hiatal hernia is a common condition often associated with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The objectives of this study were to examine the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair (LHHR) with biologic mesh to reduce and/or alleviate GERD symptoms and associated hiatal hernia recurrence.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive LHHR procedures with biologic mesh performed by a single surgeon from July 2009 to October 2014. The primary efficacy outcome measures were relief from GERD symptoms, as measured according to the GERD-health-related quality-of-life (GERD-HRQL) scale and hiatal hernia recurrence. A secondary outcome measure was overall safety of the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 221 patients underwent LHHR with biologic mesh during the study period, and pre- and postoperative GERD-HRQL studies were available for 172 of them. At baseline (preoperative), the mean GERD-HRQL score for all procedures was 18.5 ± 14.4. At follow-up (mean, 14.5 ± 11.0 months [range, 2.0-56.0]), the score showed a statistically significant decline to a mean of 4.4 ± 7.5 (P < .0001). To date, 8 patients (3.6%, 8/221) have had a documented anatomic hiatal hernia recurrence. However, a secondary hiatal hernia repair reoperation was necessary in only 1 patient. Most complications were minor (dysphagia, nausea and vomiting). However, there was 1 death caused by a hemorrhage that occurred 1 week after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using biologic mesh, both with and without a simultaneous bariatric or antireflux procedure, is an efficacious and safe therapeutic option for management of hiatal hernia, prevention of recurrence, and relief of symptomatic GERD.

Medium-term durability of giant hiatus hernia repair without mesh

Introduction This is the second report on objective review of 100 patients who underwent composite fundoplication-cardiopexy for repair of giant hiatus hernia (GHH) at a median of 24 months following surgery. Outcomes were objective follow-up by endoscopy and quality of life (QoL) by Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), modified Visick scores and dysphagia scores. The initial report for this cohort suggested a low objective recurrence rate (9%) and substantial improvements in QoL indices. Methods The rate of hernia recurrence was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and covariates were analysed with the Cox proportional hazards model. Paired t-tests and related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare QoL scores. Unpaired data were compared with the independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results Objective review was obtained in 97% of the patients. There were five recurrences of hernias that had a vertical height of >2cm from the diaphragmatic hiatus, with three patients requiring reoperation for severe dysphagia. Small recurrences (<2cm) occurred in 20 patients. The median time to recurrence was 40 months (95% confidence interval: 34-46 months). At two years, recurrence of any size had occurred in 24% of cases. At follow-up review (median: 27 months), the mean GIQLI score was 109 (p=0.279), the median modified Visick score was 2 (p=0.954) and the median dysphagia score was 41 (p=0.623). There was no evidence that the GIQLI score (p=0.089), the modified Visick score (p=0.339) or the dysphagia score (p=0.445) changed significantly after recurrence. Conclusions There was a sustained improvement in overall QoL and reflux scores after GHH repair. QoL scores showed persistent improvement in reflux and overall health, even in the subgroup with recurrence. The majority (80%) of recurrences were small and recurrent herniation did not appear to significantly change QoL. The rates of recurrence and QoL are comparable with those for other methods of repair.

Long-term results and complications related to Crurasoft® mesh repair for paraesophageal hiatal hernias

PURPOSE

The application of mesh-reinforced hiatal closure has resulted in a significant reduction in recurrence rates in comparison with primary suture repair. However, the use of meshes has not completely extended in all the cases of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias (LPHH) due to the complications related to them. The aim of this study is to present our long-term results and complications related to Crurasoft^® mesh (Bard) for the treatment of LPHH.

METHODS

From January 2004 to December 2014, 536 consecutive patients underwent open or laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease or LPHH at Ramón y Cajal University Hospital. Primary simple suture of the crura and additional reinforcement with a Crurasoft^® mesh (Bard) was performed in 93 patients (17.35 %). Radiologic hiatal hernia recurrence and mesh-related complications were investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 93 patients undergoing mesh repair, there were 28 male and 65 female with a mean age of 67.27 years (range 22-87 years). Laparoscopic surgery was attended in 88.2 % of the cases, and open surgery in the rest 11.8 %. Mean operative time was 167.05 min (range 90-370 min). Median postoperative stay was 4.79 days (range 1-41 days). Conversion rate was 8.53 % (7 patients). Intraoperative complications were described in 10.75 % (10 patients), but all of them, except in one case, could be managed laparoscopically. Overall postoperative complications rate was 28 %. Early postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients (12 %), respectively, for grades 2 (6 cases), 3b (1 case) and 5 (4 cases) according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Late postoperative complications occurred in 15 patients (16 %), respectively, for grades 1 (7 cases), 2 (2 cases), 3b (5 cases) and 5 (1 case) according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Thirty day-mortality rate was 4.3 %. Mortality rate specific associated with the mesh was 1 %. Reoperation rate was 5.4 %. After a median follow-up of 76.33 months (range 3-130 months), 8 patients (9 %) developed a recurrent hiatal hernia. Mesh was removed in three cases (3.22 %).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, the recurrence rate in patients with a Crurasoft^® (Bard) is acceptable. However, the rate of postoperative complications and mortality is excessive. The use of meshes in the hiatus keeps on being controversial due to the severe complications related to them. It would be advisable to compare our results in the non-mesh group in terms of recurrences and complications, to determine if meshes in the hiatus should be given in these patients due to its high rate of complications.

Use of Mesh in Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Risk-Benefit Analysis

Introduction

Mesh augmentation seems to reduce recurrences following laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPHR). However, there is an uncertain risk of mesh-associated complications. Risk-benefit analysis might solve the dilemma.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational clinical studies (OCSs) comparing laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty (LMAH) with laparoscopic mesh-free hiatoplasty (LH) with regard to recurrences and complications. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to determine potential benefits of LMAH. All data regarding LMAH were used to estimate risk of mesh-associated complications. Risk-benefit analysis was performed using a Markov Monte Carlo decision-analytic model.

Results

Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs and 9 OCSs including 915 patients revealed a significantly lower recurrence rate for LMAH compared to LH (pooled proportions, 12.1% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio (OR), 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34 to 0.89; p = 0.04). Complication rates were comparable in both groups (pooled proportions, 15.3% vs. 14.2%; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.65; p = 0.94). The systematic review of LMAH data yielded a mesh-associated complication rate of 1.9% (41/2121; 95% CI, 1.3% to 2.5%) for those series reporting at least one mesh-associated complication. The Markov Monte Carlo decision-analytic model revealed a procedure-related mortality rate of 1.6% for LMAH and 1.8% for LH.

Conclusions

Mesh application should be considered for LPHR because it reduces recurrences at least in the mid-term. Overall procedure-related complications and mortality seem to not be increased despite of potential mesh-associated complications.

The use of crural relaxing incisions with biologic mesh reinforcement during laparoscopic repair of complex hiatal hernias

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair has a better chance of success if the hiatus is closed without tension. This study attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of hiatal hernia recurrence in patients who undergo hiatal closure with diaphragmatic relaxing incisions? (2) Can biologic mesh be safely substituted for synthetic mesh as coverage of the relaxing incisions?

METHODS

We identified all patients who underwent laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair at our institution between 2007 and 2013 and reviewed their clinical records. Radiologic recurrence was identified by an experienced radiologist and defined as the presence of any abdominal contents located above the diaphragm on esophagram. Clinical recurrence was defined as little or no improvement in symptoms, the development of a new symptom, or the need for medical, endoscopic, or surgical treatment of postoperative symptoms.

RESULTS

A minimum of 6 months of radiologic and clinical follow-up was available for 146 (40 %) patients, including 16 with relaxing incisions. There were 66 (45 %) recurrent hernias detected on esophagram. There was no difference in the rate of recurrent hiatal hernia among the three groups: Primary closure of the hiatus (21/36 [58 %]), primary closure with biologic mesh reinforcement (36/94 [38 %]), and relaxing incision with biologic mesh reinforcement (9/16 [56 %]; p = 0.428). Two reoperations were performed on patients who underwent left relaxing incisions and developed symptomatic diaphragmatic hernias through the left relaxing incisions. There were no complications associated with use of biologic mesh at the hiatus.

CONCLUSIONS

Rate of recurrent hiatal hernia is similar between patients who undergo diaphragmatic relaxing incisions and patients who undergo primary hiatal closure. Relaxing incisions can be safely performed on either crus; however, biologic mesh should not be used to patch a left-sided relaxing incision due to the risk of developing a diaphragmatic hernia.

Hiatal hernia repair with gore bio-a tissue reinforcement: our experience

Type I hiatal hernia is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in 50–90% of cases. Several trials strongly support surgery as an effective alternative to medical therapy. Today, laparoscopic fundoplication is considered as the procedure of choice. However, primary laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair is associated with upto 42% recurrence rate. Mesh reinforcement of the crural closure decreases the recurrence but can lead to complications, above all nonabsorbable ones. We experiment a new totally absorbable mesh by Gore. Case. We present a case of a 65-year-old female patient with a 6-year classic history of GERD. Endoscopy revealed a large hiatal hernia and esophagitis. pH study was positive for acid reflux; esophageal manometry revealed LES intrathoracic dislocation. With laparoscopic approach, the hiatal hernia defect was identified and primarily repaired, by crural closure. Gore Bio-A Tissue Reinforcement was trimmed to fit the defect accommodating the esophagus. Nissen fundoplication was performed. Result. Bio-A mesh was easily placed laparoscopically. It has good handling and could be cut and tailored intraoperatively for optimal adaptation. There were no short-term complications. Conclusion. Crural closure reinforcement can be done readily with this new totally absorbable mesh replaced by soft tissue over six months. However, further data and studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes.

Recurrent upside-down stomach after endoscopic repositioning and gastropexy treated by laparoscopic surgery

Patients with an upside-down stomach usually receive surgical treatment. In high-risk patients, endoscopic repositioning and gastropexy can be performed. However, the risk of recurrence after endoscopic treatment is not known. We treated a case of recurrent upside-down stomach after endoscopic therapy that indicated the limits of endoscopic treatment and risk of recurrence. An 88-year-old woman was treated three times for vomiting in the past. She presented to our hospital with periodic vomiting and an inability to eat, and a diagnosis of upside-down stomach was made. Endoscopic repositioning and gastropexy were performed. The anterior stomach wall was fixed to the abdominal wall in three places as widely as possible. Following treatment, she became symptom-free. Three months later, she was hospitalized again because of a recurrent upside-down stomach. Laparoscopic repair of hernias and gastropexy was performed. Using a laparoscope, two causes of recurrence were found. One cause was that the range of adherence between the stomach and the abdominal wall was narrow (from the antrum only to the lower corpus of stomach), so the upper corpus of stomach was rotated and herniated into the esophageal hiatus. The other cause was adhesion between the omentum and the esophageal hiatus which caused the stomach to rotate and repeatedly become herniated. Although endoscopic treatment for upside-down stomach can be a useful alternative method in high-risk patients, its ability to prevent recurrence is limited. Moreover, a repeated case caused by adhesions has risks of recurrence.

Recurrent upside-down stomach after endoscopic repositioning and gastropexy treated by laparoscopic surgery

Patients with an upside-down stomach usually receive surgical treatment. In high-risk patients, endoscopic repositioning and gastropexy can be performed. However, the risk of recurrence after endoscopic treatment is not known. We treated a case of recurrent upside-down stomach after endoscopic therapy that indicated the limits of endoscopic treatment and risk of recurrence. An 88-year-old woman was treated three times for vomiting in the past. She presented to our hospital with periodic vomiting and an inability to eat, and a diagnosis of upside-down stomach was made. Endoscopic repositioning and gastropexy were performed. The anterior stomach wall was fixed to the abdominal wall in three places as widely as possible. Following treatment, she became symptom-free. Three months later, she was hospitalized again because of a recurrent upside-down stomach. Laparoscopic repair of hernias and gastropexy was performed. Using a laparoscope, two causes of recurrence were found. One cause was that the range of adherence between the stomach and the abdominal wall was narrow (from the antrum only to the lower corpus of stomach), so the upper corpus of stomach was rotated and herniated into the esophageal hiatus. The other cause was adhesion between the omentum and the esophageal hiatus which caused the stomach to rotate and repeatedly become herniated. Although endoscopic treatment for upside-down stomach can be a useful alternative method in high-risk patients, its ability to prevent recurrence is limited. Moreover, a repeated case caused by adhesions has risks of recurrence.

Reoperative intervention in patients with mesh at the hiatus is associated with high incidence of esophageal resection--a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Mesh hiatoplasty is a widely debated topic among foregut surgeons. While short-term outcomes tout decreased recurrence rates, an increase in mesh-related complications has been reported. The aim of this study is to present a single-center experience with reoperative intervention in patients with previous mesh at the hiatus.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, a prospectively maintained database was retrospectively queried to identify patients who underwent reoperative intervention between 2003 and spring of 2013 and had mesh placed at a previous hiatal hernia procedure. Patient charts were reviewed and data variables collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (mean age of 56.7 ± 18.3; 19 females) who underwent 27 procedures met the inclusion criteria. Synthetic mesh was placed in 15 (56 %) procedures, while the remaining 12 had biologic mesh. The mean interval between reoperative intervention and previous surgery was 33 months. Dysphagia (56 %) was the most common presentation, while three patients had mesh erosion. Recurrent hiatus hernia (2 to 7 cm) was noted in 19 (70 %) patients. Eight patients (30 %) underwent redo fundoplication, six patients (22 %) were converted to Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy, two patients (7.4 %) underwent distal esophagectomy with esophagojejunostomy, five patients (19 %) had subtotal esophagectomy with gastric pull-up, and one patient underwent substernal gastric pull-up for esophageal bypass with interval esophagectomy. The mean operative time was 252 ± 71.7 min, and the median blood loss was 150 ml (range, 50-1,650 ml). There was no postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Reoperative intervention in patients with mesh at the hiatus is associated with a high need for esophageal resection. More than two thirds of the patients also had a recurrent hiatal hernia.