Simple suture or prosthesis hiatal closure in laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia: a retrospective cohort study

The effect of surgical repair of hiatal hernia (HH) on pulmonary function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hiatal hernia is renowned for the symptom of reflux, and few physicians associate a hiatal hernia with pulmonary issues. It is widely acknowledged that a hiatal hernia can be treated with surgery. However, less is known about how the surgical procedure would benefit pulmonary function. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether surgical repair can improve pulmonary function in patients with hiatal hernias.

METHODS

We registered the protocol on the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) platform (no. CRD42022369949). We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for cohort studies that reported on the pulmonary function of patients with hiatal hernias. The quality of each cohort study was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). We then calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals for these continuous outcomes. Each study's consistency was appraised using the I2 statistic. The sensitivity analysis was performed using the trim-and-fill method. Publication bias was confirmed using the funnel plot visually and Egger regression test statistically.

RESULTS

A total of 262 patients from 5 cohorts were included in the meta-analysis. The quality evaluation revealed that, of these 5 papers, 3 received 8 NOS stars out of 9 stars, 1 received 9, and the other received 7, meaning all included cohort studies were of high quality. The results showed that surgical repair for a hiatal hernia significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; weighted mean difference [WMD]:0.200; 95% CI 0.047-0.353; I2 = 71.6%; P = 0.010), forced vital capacity (FVC; WMD: 0.242; 95% CI 0.161-0.323; I2 = 7.1%; P = 0.000), and total lung capacity (TLC; WMD: 0.223; 95% CI 0.098-0.348; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.000) but had little effect on residual volume (RV; WMD: -0.028; 95% CI -0.096 to 0.039; I2 = 8.7%; P = 0.411) and the diffusing capacity carbon monoxide (DLCO; WMD: 0.234; 95% CI -0.486 to 0.953; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.524).

CONCLUSION

For individuals with hiatal hernias, surgical repair is an efficient technique to improve respiratory function as measured by FEV1, FVC, and TLC.

Laparoscopic large hiatus hernia repair with mesh reinforcement versus suture cruroplasty alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the difference in outcomes in laparoscopic large hiatus hernia (LHH) repair using suture-based and mesh-based repair techniques.

METHODS

A systematic search of articles was conducted in PubMed, Medline and Embase using the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing recurrences and reoperations in those patients with large hiatal hernia repair (> 30% stomach in the chest, > 5 cm hiatal defect, hiatal surface area > 10 cm²) who had mesh vs no mesh were assessed quantitatively. The impact of mesh on significant intraoperative/postoperative surgical complications was qualitatively assessed.

RESULTS

Pooled data included six randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational studies with 1670 patients (824 with no mesh, 846 with mesh). There was a significant reduction in the total recurrence rate with mesh (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.80, p = 0.007). Mesh use did not cause significant reduction in recurrences > 2 cm (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52-1.67, p = 0.83) or in reoperation rates (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39-1.07, p = 0.09). None of the specific meshes assessed were found to be superior in the reduction of recurrence or reoperation rates. Cases of mesh erosion with eventual foregut resection were noted and were associated with synthetic meshes only.

CONCLUSION

Mesh reinforcement seemed protective against total recurrence in LHH although this has to be interpreted with caution given the level of heterogeneity introduced by the inclusion of observational studies in the analysis. There was no significant reduction in large recurrences (> 2 cm) or reoperation rate. If the synthetic mesh is to be used patients need to be informed of the risk of mesh erosion.

A Narrative Review on Treatment of Giant Hiatal Hernia

Background: The current gold standard of treatment for giant hiatal hernias (GHHs) is laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was performed as a less invasive procedure for paraesophageal hernias more than 25 years ago. Its viability and safety have almost all been shown. Materials and Methods: A review of recent and current studies' literature was done. Prospective randomized trials, systematic reviews, clinical reviews, and original articles were all investigated. The data were gathered in the form of a narrative evaluation. We examine the state of laparoscopic GHH repair today and outline the GHH management strategy. Results: In this review, we clear up misunderstandings of GHH and address bad habits that may have contributed to poor results, and we have consequently performed a methodical evaluation of GHH. First, we address subcategorizing GHH and provide criteria to define them. The preoperative workup strategies are then discussed, with a focus on any pertinent and frequent atypical symptoms, indications for surgery, timing of surgery, and the importance of surgery. The approach to the techniques and the logic behind surgery are then presented along with some important dissection techniques. Finally, we debate the role of mesh reinforcement and evaluate the data in terms of recurrence, reoperation rate, complications, and delayed stomach emptying. Finally, we suggest a justification for common postoperative investigations. Conclusions: Surgery is the only effective treatment for GHH at the moment. If the right operational therapy principles are applied, this is generally successful. There is a growing interest in laparoscopic paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair as a result of the introduction of laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Today's less invasive procedures provide a better therapeutic choice with a lower risk.

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.

Prosthetic Reinforcement in Hiatal Hernia Repair, Does Mesh Material Matter? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Hiatal hernia repair (HHR) is a complex surgical procedure and its management is not standardized. Several meta-analyses have compared cruroplasty with hiatus reinforcement with mesh, and crura augmentation appears to have better outcomes. However, heterogeneity in type of mesh and placement techniques has differed significantly. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were carried out. An electronic systematic research was carried out throughout Pubmed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, of articles analyzing HHR with cruroplasty, nonabsorbable mesh (NAM), and absorbable mesh (AM) reinforcement. Results: Seventeen articles based on 1857 patients were enrolled in this article. The point estimation showed that when compared against the control group (NAM), the HH recurrence risk in AM and cruroplasty group was higher (relative ratio [RR] 2.3; CrI 0.8-6.3, RR 3.6; CrI 2.0-8.3, respectively). Postoperative complication rates were alike in all groups. The prevalence of mesh erosion after HHR is low. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis showed that prosthetic reinforcement significantly reduced HH recurrence when compared with cruroplasty alone. However, there is not enough evidence to compare different mesh compositions.

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.

Reparación laparoscópica de hernia hiatal gigante

Introducción. La reparación laparoscópica es el estándar de tratamiento en hernia hiatal gigante. Sin embargo, a pesar de su baja morbilidad, la tasa de recurrencia sigue siendo alta. Nuestro objetivo fue describir los resultados de la reparación laparoscópica de hernia hiatal gigante, independientemente de la técnica de cruroplastia empleada. Métodos. Se llevó a cabo un estudio retrospectivo de pacientes llevados a reparación laparoscópica de hernia hiatal gigante en el periodo 2009-2017. Se analizaron los datos demográficos, la técnica quirúrgica, las complicaciones y la estancia hospitalaria. Se revisaron los resultados de la endoscopia, la radiografía de vías digestivas altas y la escala de síntomas GERD-HRQOL, obtenidos luego de un año de cirugía. Resultados. Se incluyeron 44 pacientes con un tamaño promedio de la hernia de 7 cm. Se practicó cruroplastia con sutura simple en 36,4 %, sutura más refuerzo con politetrafluoroetileno (PTFE) o dacrón, en 59,1 %, y se usó malla en 4,5 %. Hubo 12 complicaciones, la estancia hospitalaria promedio fue de 3,5 días y no hubo mortalidad. Se encontró recurrencia endoscópica o radiológica en 6/20 pacientes, todas pequeñas y asintomáticas. En 23 pacientes, la escala GERD-HRQOL reportó un valor promedio de 7,7 y 78 % de satisfacción. Solo un paciente requirió cirugía de revisión. Conclusión. El método preferido de reparación laparoscópica de la hernia hiatal gigante es la cruroplastia sin malla, técnica asociada a baja morbilidad y adecuado control de los síntomas. La tasa de recurrencia es similar a la reportada en la literatura. Se requieren estudios prospectivos con seguimiento completo a largo plazo para validar estos resultados.

Laparoscopic Surgery for Recurrent Hiatal Hernia

Surgical treatment of hiatal hernia (HH) is well standardized. However, recurrence is observed in 15%-60% of cases, and is challenging to manage. The aim of this study was to analyze the causes of surgical failure and provide some guidelines for treatment. The symptoms of recurrent HH vary widely, and include persistent reflux, dysphagia, and permanent discomfort, leading to a marked change in the quality of life. Morphological and functional pretherapeutic evaluation is necessary to determine whether the symptoms are due to recurrent HH, and to understand the cause of failure. Redo surgery is technically difficult and challenging, and should only be used in symptomatic patients whose symptoms are definitively those of recurrent HH.

Critical appraisal of the impact of surgical repair of type II-IV paraoesophageal hernia (POH) on pulmonary improvement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Paraoesophageal hernia (POH) comprising type II-IV hiatal hernia often presents with pulmonary symptoms such as shortness of breath. However, impact of surgical repair on improvement in pulmonary symptoms is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at characterising impact of POH repair on patient reported improvement in pulmonary symptoms.

METHODS

This systematic review identified studies reported pulmonary symptoms in patients with undergoing surgical repair for Type II-IV POH from 1st January 2001 to 1st December 2018. Primary outcome was improvement in pulmonary symptoms. Secondary outcomes were improvement in other patient-reported outcomes such as heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain, and dysphagia and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

This systematic review identified 27 studies (n = 4428 patients) reporting assessment of pulmonary symptoms. However, only 21 studies (n = 2902 patients) reported preoperative and postoperative pulmonary symptoms and hence these were included in the final meta-analysis. There was significant improvement in pulmonary symptoms following POH repair (OR: 8.40, CI_95%: 4.91-14.35, p < 0.001), with improvement in all types of POH. Rates of overall and major complications were 16% and 5%, respectively. Rates of conversion, 30-day mortality, reoperation and recurrence were 2%, 1% 4% and 12% respectively.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrates that POH repair is associated with improvement in pulmonary symptoms with acceptable low laparoscopic conversion rates, morbidity, mortality and recurrence rates.

Mesh reinforcement of paraesophageal hernia repair: Trends and outcomes from a national database

BACKGROUND

Placement of paraesophageal type of "mesh" in paraesophageal hernia repair is controversial. This study examines the trends and outcomes of mesh placement in paraesophageal hernia repair.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent paraesophageal hernia repair with or without mesh (2010-2017). Demographics, operative approach, and outcomes were compared over time.

RESULTS

Of 25,801, most paraesophageal hernia repair cases were elective (89.3%), without mesh (61.9%), and performed laparoscopically (91.3%).When compared with open paraesophageal hernia repair patients, the patients undergoing laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair had lesser rates of reoperation, readmission, mortality, overall complications and major complications (2.7% vs 4.8%, 6.2% vs 9.6%, 0.6% vs 2.9%, 7.1% vs 21.3%, 3.8% vs 11.1%, respectively; all P < .0001). Mesh placement was more common in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (38.9 vs 29.7, P < .0001) than opern paraesophageal hernia repair. During 2010-2017, mesh placement decreased from 46.2% to 35.2% of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (P < .0001). Operative times for laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair decreased over time, and laparoscpic paraesophageal hernia repair without mesh was consistently less (with mesh: 176.0 ± 71.0 to 149.9 ± 72.5 min, without mesh: 148.6 ± 71.4 to 134.6 ± 70.4). We observed no changes in comorbidities or adverse outcomes over time. Using multivariate analysis to control for potential confounding factors, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated most strongly with adverse outcomes, including mortality (OR 2.53, CI 1.55-4.14), any complications (OR 1.80, CI 1.51-2.16), major complications (OR 1.80, CI 1.51-2.16), readmission (OR 1.63, CI 1.33-1.99) and reoperation (OR 1.49, CI 1.10-2.02). Mesh placement was not associated with adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The placement of mesh during laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is not associated with adverse outcomes. Use of mesh with laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is decreasing with no apparent adverse impact on short-term patient outcomes. Further research is needed to investigate patient factors not captured by this national database, such as characteristics of the hernia, patient symptoms, and hernia recurrence.

Paraesophageal Hernia and Reflux Prevention: Is One Fundoplication Better than the Other?

BACKGROUND

The management of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) is one of the most debated in surgery. Trends regarding indications, approach (open, laparoscopic, thoracoscopic), sac excision, mesh placement, and routine performance of fundoplication have changed over time. Today, most surgeons tend to perform a laparoscopic PEH repair that entails the excision of the sac, liberal use of a mesh to buttress the hiatus, and the addition of an anti-reflux procedure. Nevertheless, very little has been written on which type of fundoplication should be performed in these patients. Therefore, the goal of our study was to provide an evidence-based overview of which type of fundoplication should be performed during a PEH repair and the role of preoperative function tests in the decision-making METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochran, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase databases for papers published between 1996 and 2016 pertaining to the surgical treatment of PEH. We hand-searched the bibliographies of included studies and we excluded all reviews and case reports. We selected clinical studies and technical reports. We only considered papers stating rationales for the type of fundoplication performed.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 24 articles: 17 clinical studies and 7 technical reports. In five of the clinical studies, a fundoplication was added only to patients with reflux symptoms. In all clinical studies, the most performed procedure was a total fundoplication (Nissen or Nissen-Rossetti), whereas a partial fundoplication (Toupet more frequently than Dor) or no fundoplication was reserved to those with impaired esophageal motility. All seven technical reports recommended a tailored approach and suggested adding a partial fundoplication (mainly Toupet) when the manometric findings showed esophageal dismotility.

CONCLUSION

The argument of whether or not a fundoplication should be added to a PEH repair in patients without evidence of reflux still persists. However, this review highlights that, when a fundoplication is performed, a tailored approach based on preoperative function tests is almost always preferred.

Treatment of giant paraesophageal hernia: pro laparoscopic approach

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A collective review of biological versus synthetic mesh-reinforced cruroplasty during laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication

Background:

Laparoscopic cruroplasty and fundoplication have become the gold standard in the treatment of hiatal hernia and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The use of a mesh-reinforcement of the cruroplasty has been proven effective; although, there is a lack of evidence considering which type of mesh is superior. The aim of this study was to compare recurrence rates after mesh reinforced cruroplasty using biological versus synthetic meshes.

Methods:

We performed a systematic review of all clinical trials published between January 2004 and September 2015 describing the application of a mesh in the hiatal hernia repair during Nissen fundoplication for both GERD and hiatal hernia. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate, and secondary outcomes were complication rate, mortality and symptomatic outcome.

Results:

We included 16 studies and extracted data regarding 1089 mesh operated patients of whom 385 received a biological mesh and 704 a synthetic mesh. The mean follow-up was 53.4 months. The recurrence rate in the synthetic mesh group was 6.8% compared to 16.1% in the biological mesh group (P < 0.05). The complication rate was 5.1% and 4.6% (P = 0.694), respectively, and there were 12 mesh-related complications. No mesh-related mortality was reported.

Conclusion:

Mesh reinforcement of hiatal hernia repair seems safe in the short-term follow-up. The available literature suggests no clear advantage of biological over synthetic meshes. Regarding cost-efficiency and short-term results, the use of synthetic nonabsorbable meshes might be advocated.

Routine use of mesh during hiatal closure is safe with no increase in adverse sequelae

BACKGROUND

Primary laparoscopic hiatal repair with fundoplication is associated with a high recurrence rate. We wanted to evaluate the potential risks posed by routine use of onlay-mesh during hiatal closure, when compared to primary repair.

METHODS

Utilizing single-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent primary laparoscopic hiatal repair from January 2005 through December 2014. Retrospective chart review was performed to determine perioperative morbidity and mortality. Long-term results were assessed by sending out a questionnaire. Results were tabulated and patients were divided into 2 groups: fundoplication with hiatal closure + absorbable or non-absorbable mesh and fundoplication with hiatal closure alone.

RESULTS

A total of 505 patients underwent primary laparoscopic fundoplication. Mesh reinforcement was used in 270 patients (53.5%). There was no significant difference in the 30-day perioperative outcomes between the 2 groups. No clinically apparent erosions were noted and no mesh required removal. Standard questionnaire was sent to 475 patients; 174 (36.6%) patients responded with a median follow-up of 4.29 years. Once again, no difference was noted between the 2 groups in terms of dysphagia, heartburn, long-term antacid use, or patient satisfaction. Of these, 15 patients (16.9%, 15/89) in the 'Mesh' cohort had symptomatic recurrence as compared to 19 patients (22.4%, 19/85) in the 'No Mesh' cohort (p = 0.362). A reoperation was necessary in 6 patients (6.7%) in the 'Mesh' cohort as compared to 3 patients (3.5%) in the 'No Mesh' cohort (p = 0.543).

CONCLUSIONS

Onlay-mesh use in laparoscopic hiatal repair with fundoplication is safe and has similar short and long-term results as primary repair.

Functional Results after Repair of Large Hiatal Hernia by Use of a Biologic Mesh

BACKGROUND

The aim of this observational study is to analyze the results of patients with large hiatal hernia and upside-down stomach after surgical closure with a biological mesh (Permacol(®), Covidien, Neustadt an der Donau, Germany). Biological mesh is used to prevent long-term detrimental effects of artificial meshes and to reduce recurrence rates.

METHODS

A total of 13 patients with a large hiatal hernia and endothoracic stomach, who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2014, were included. Interviews and upper endoscopy were conducted to determine recurrences, lifestyle restrictions, and current complaints.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 26 ± 18 months (range: 3-58 months), 10 patients (3 men, mean age 73 ± 13, range: 26-81 years) were evaluated. A small recurrent axial hernia was found in one patient postoperatively. Dysphagia was the most common complaint (four cases); while in one case, the problem was solved after endoscopic dilatation. In three cases, bloat and postprandial pain were documented. In one case, an explantation of the mesh was necessary due to mesh migration and painful adhesions. In one further case with gastroparesis, pyloroplasty was performed without success. The data are compared to the available literature. It was found that dysphagia and recurrence rates are unrelated both in biological and in synthetic meshes if the esophagus is encircled. In series preserving the esophagus at least partially uncoated, recurrences after the use of biological meshes relieve dysphagia. After the application of synthetic meshes, dysphagia is aggravated by recurrences.

CONCLUSION

Recurrence is rare after encircling hiatal hernia repair with the biological mesh Permacol(®). Dysphagia, gas bloat, and intra-abdominal pain are frequent complaints. Despite the small number of patients, it can be concluded that a biological mesh may be an alternative to synthetic meshes to reduce recurrences at least for up to 2 years. Our study demonstrates that local fibrosis and thickening of the mesh can affect the outcome being associated with abdominal discomfort despite a successful repair. The review of the literature indicates comparable results after 2 years with both biologic and synthetic meshes embracing the esophagus. At the same point in time, reconstruction with synthetic and biologic materials differs when the esophagus is not or only partially encircled in the repair. This is important since encircling artificial meshes can erode the esophagus after 5-10 years.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of mesh vs suture cruroplasty in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Equipoise exists regarding whether mesh cruroplasty during laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair improves symptomatic outcomes compared with suture repair.

DATA SOURCE

Systematic literature review (MEDLINE and EMBASE) identified 13 studies (1,194 patients; 521 suture and 673 mesh) comparing mesh versus suture cruroplasty during laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernia. We abstracted data regarding symptom assessment, objective recurrence, and reoperation and performed meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of studies reported significant symptom improvement. Data were insufficient to evaluate symptomatic versus asymptomatic recurrence. Time to evaluation was skewed toward longer follow-up after suture cruroplasty. Odds of recurrence (odds ratio .51, 95% confidence interval .30 to .87; overall P = .014) but not need for reoperation (odds ratio .42, 95% confidence interval .13 to 1.37; overall P = .149) were less after mesh cruroplasty. Quality of evidence supporting routine use of mesh cruroplasty is low. Mesh should be used at surgeon discretion until additional studies evaluating symptomatic outcomes, quality of life, and long-term recurrence are available.

New surgical approach for giant paraesophageal hernia repair: closure of the esophageal hiatus anteriorly using the left triangular ligament

BACKGROUND

Obtaining a tension-free repair for giant paraesophageal hernias (PEH) is often challenging. Many different techniques have been proposed, including laparoscopic posterior hiatoplasty with the use of prosthetic or biologic mesh as well as the use of autologous teres or falciform ligament flaps. In this report, we describe the use of the left triangular ligament as an onlay autologous vascularized flap to bridge the anterior residual defect after posterior cruroplasty.

METHODS

A novel technique of paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair is described. Posterior hiatoplasty is performed, including the approximation of the diaphragmatic crural fibers to the extent possible. The left triangular ligament is then mobilized and sutured to the right and left crural fibers lining the esophageal hiatus to seal the anterior residual diaphragmatic defect.

RESULTS

This technique has been performed in 4 patients with a mean age of 71 years and a 3:1 female to male ratio. The average hiatal defect size was 5.5 cm and the average length of operation was 122 min. There was no evidence of radiologic or clinical recurrence on follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The use of the left triangular ligament flap is feasible and may be a valuable tool for closure of an anterior diaphragmatic defect in giant PEHs. Additional studies to validate its long-term function are needed.

Polypropylene, polyester or polytetrafluoroethylene-is there an ideal material for mesh augmentation at the esophageal hiatus? Results from an experimental study in a porcine model

PURPOSE

Knowledge about the influence of underlying biomaterial on behavior of surgical meshes at the esophageal hiatus is rare, but essential for safe and effective hiatal hernia surgery. This study aimed to characterize the influence of polymer material on mesh behavior at the hiatus.

METHODS

24 pigs in three groups of eight underwent implantation of either polypropylene (PP), polyester (PET) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh placed circularly at the esophageal hiatus. After 8 weeks, necropsy and measurements were performed evaluating mesh deformation, adhesion formation, fixation of the esophagogastric junction and mesh position. Foreign body reaction was assessed by mononuclear cell count and immunostaining of Ki-67. Tissue integration was evaluated by immunostaining of type I and type III collagen fibers.

RESULTS

Mesh shrinkage was the highest for PTFE, lower for PP and the lowest for PET (34.9 vs. 19.8 vs. 12.1 %; p = 0.002). Mesh aperture for the esophagus showed an enlargement within all groups, which was highest for PTFE compared to PP and PET (100.8 vs. 47.0 vs. 35.9 %; p = 0.001). The adhesion score was highest for PP, lower for PTFE and the lowest for PET (11.0 vs. 9.5 vs. 5.0; p = 0.001) and correlated positively with the score of esophagogastric fixation (r s = 0.784, p < 0.001). No mesh migration, erosion or stenosis of the esophagus occurred. Evaluation of foreign body reaction and tissue integration showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

In this experimental setting, PP-meshes showed the most appropriate characteristics for augmentation at the hiatus. Due to solid fixation of the esophagogastric junction and low shrinkage tendency, PP-meshes may be effective in preventing hiatal hernia recurrence. The use of PTFE-mesh at the hiatus may be disadvantageous due to high shrinkage rates and correlating enlargement of the aperture for the esophagus.

Influence of weight and structure on biological behavior of polypropylene mesh prostheses placed at the esophageal hiatus

BACKGROUND

Experimental knowledge about mesh behavior at the esophageal hiatus is rare, but such information is essential in order to find a safe and effective method of mesh reinforcement. This study aimed to investigate the influence of mesh structure on the biological behavior of polypropylene prostheses placed at the hiatus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four pigs in three groups of eight underwent implantation of heavyweight small-porous (HW-SP), heavyweight large-porous (HW-LP), or lightweight large-porous (LW-LP) circular polypropylene mesh at the hiatus. Eight weeks later, the meshes were explanted. Macroscopic analysis was performed evaluating mesh deformation, adhesions, and position relative to the hiatal margin. Histological analysis comprised evaluation of foreign body reaction and tissue integration by mononuclear cell count and immunostaining of Ki-67, collagen type I, and collagen type III.

RESULTS

No mesh-related complications occurred. Mesh shrinkage was observed within all groups and was the lowest for HW-LP, higher for HW-SP, and highest for LW-LP (13.8% versus 19.5% versus 25.5%; P<.001). The adhesion score was highest for HW-SP, lower for HW-LP, and lowest for LW-LP (11.0 versus 8.0 versus 6.0; P<.001). The collagen type I/III ratio was higher for HW-SP compared with HW-LP and LW-LP (3.1 versus 2.2 versus 1.8; P=.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Heavyweight polypropylene meshes may be advantageous for application at the hiatus. They provide a solid fixation of the esophagogastric junction by adhesions, which may contribute to a reduction of hernia recurrence. In heavyweight meshes, the large-porous structure is associated with superior form stability, and small-porous meshes are superior with regard to solidity of tissue integration, which may prevent mesh migration.

Current readings: Failed hiatal hernia repair

Recurrent hiatal hernia is noted in up to 70% of patients undergoing reoperative antireflux procedure. Role of short esophagus vis-à-vis a need for Collis gastroplasty, mesh reinforcement of hiatus, and access of surgery (thoracotomy vs laparotomy) have been debated. The aim of this article is to review selected recent publications that address these issues.

Mesh in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The use of mesh is becoming more popular for large hiatal hernia (type II-IV) repair to reduce the recurrence rate. The aim of this study was to outline the currently available literature on the use of mesh in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair, emphasizing objective outcome.

METHODS

A structured search of the literature was performed in the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were three randomized controlled trials, seven prospective and five retrospective cohort studies, and five prospective and one retrospective case-control study. The study design was not reported in the remaining studies. In the included studies, laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair was performed with mesh in 924 patients (mesh group) and without mesh in 340 patients (nonmesh group). The type of mesh used was very different: polypropylene in six, biomesh in nine, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) in two, expanded PTFE (ePTFE) in two, and composite polypropylene-PTFE in another two. At least two different kinds of mesh were used in five studies. Radiological and/or endoscopic follow-up was performed after a mean (± SEM) period of 25.2 ± 4.0 months. There was no or only a small recurrence (recurrent hiatal hernia <2 cm) in 385 of the 451 available patients (85.4 %) in the mesh group and in 182 of 247 (73.7 %) in the nonmesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of mesh in the repair of large hiatal hernias is promising with respect to the reduction of anatomical recurrences. However, many different kinds and configurations of mesh are available. This systematic review of the literature is a basis for high-quality randomized controlled trials to obtain the most effective and safe mesh in the long term.

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.

A new experimental method for hiatal reinforcement using connective tissue patch transfer

The closure of a large hiatal hernia still represents a challenge for the surgeon. Mesh reinforcement of a hiatoplasty generally decreases recurrence rate. An artificial mesh is cheaper compared with a biologic one, but has a higher complication rate. Our aim was to introduce a new biologic reinforcement method with less expenses. During organ donation for transplantation, tissue islets from pericardium and fascia lata were cryopreserved in a tissue bank. Later, the grafts were transplanted on the diaphragm of mongrel dogs. After 1, 3, and 6 months, the animals were sacrificed, and the transplanted patches were macroscopically and microscopically examined. There were no macroscopic signs of inflammation, abcedation, or significant adhesion formation. The grafts were well recognizable, with palpable thickening and moderate shrinkage. Microscopically, an organization process with fibrosis, neovascularization, and peritoneal integration could be observed. Reinforcement of a hiatoplasty with connective tissue transfer either with cryopreserved or autologous tissue is a good option. This is a cheap and easy method, which should also be tested in human interventions.

Laparoscopic prosthetic hiatal reinforcement for large hiatal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Large hiatal hernia (LHH) is defined by a hiatal defect larger than 6cm; repair is indicated whenever it becomes symptomatic. As the risk of recurrence after most techniques is relatively high, laparoscopic repair with prosthetic reinforcement of the hiatus has been proposed to reduce the recurrence rate. Our technique and outcomes are reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic prosthetic hiatal reinforcement was performed in 58 patients between August 1997 and October 2009. Prolene(®), Mersilene(®), Goretex(®), and Parietex(®) were the four types of prosthetic material used. Since January 2004, the double-sided V shaped Crurasoft(®) mesh was introduced. Surgical evaluation was based on anatomical and functional criteria: the anatomical results included the presence of recurrent hiatal hernia or esophageal stricture as evaluated by an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) series; functional evaluation was based on a questionnaire concerning long-term patient satisfaction according to the Visick score. Median follow-up was 51 months.

RESULTS

Postoperative UGI series were performed during the initial hospitalization in 37 patients: results were judged to be satisfactory. A routine follow-up UGI series was obtained at 8 months and one year in 46 patients. Two patients underwent reoperation for lower esophageal stricture at 6 months and 16 months. Forty-five patients (77.6%) were reevaluated. Of these, 29 patients (64.4%) were free of symptoms with a good quality of life, eight patients (17.7%) complained of moderate dysphagia and two patients (4.4%) had severe dysphagia. Four patients (8.9%) had moderate pyrosis while severe pyrosis requiring long term PPI treatment was observed in three patients (6.7%). No prosthesis-induced ulceration or perforation was noted. Late follow-up UGI series, performed in 21 patients, showed two patients with severe stricture and a single case of recurrence, but neither of these patients required surgical management.

CONCLUSION

The addition of mesh reinforcement to surgical repair of large hiatal defects is safe and beneficial in terms of quality of life.

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.