Robotic-Assisted Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: Initial Experience at a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is considered the standard approach for the treatment of paraesophageal hernias (PEHs). Despite its advantages, this approach is technically demanding with a significant learning curve. Data about the safety and utility of the robotically assisted paraesophageal hernia repair (RA-PEHR) are scarce. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and safety of robotic assistance for the treatment of PEH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2010 and December 2015, patients who underwent elective RA-PEHR were included in a prospectively collected database. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, preoperative testing, operative time (OT), length of hospital stay (LOS), conversion rate, morbidity, and mortality were recorded and reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients underwent RA-PEHR with mesh, 72% were female (mean age of 63 and mean body mass index [BMI] of 30). ASA classification was 2.6 (57% of patients had an ASA III). With respect to the type of the hernia, the preoperative diagnosis was: Type II 26%, III 64%, and IV 13%. OT averaged 186 minutes (88-360), including robot setup time. After the 16th case, OT significantly decreased by 4.09 minutes (P = .01). There were no conversions. The average blood loss was 51 mL. Perioperative complications, including intraoperative and 30-day complications, were 6% and 23%, respectively. The mean length of hospitalization was 2.6 (1-18) days. There were no deaths. Forty patients (66%) were available for follow-up, and length of follow-up was 17 ± 15 months. Anatomic recurrence was observed in 42% of patients and only 23% of patients were symptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

This report represents the largest series to date of RA-PEHR. RA-PEHR has proved to be feasible and safe with a learning curve comparable to the standard laparoscopic approach.

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.