Laparoscopic Approach to Paraesophageal Hernia Repair

The introduction of minimally invasive techniques to the field of foregut surgery has revolutionized the surgical approach to giant paraesophageal hernia repair. Laparoscopy has become the standard approach in patients with giant paraesophageal hernia because it has been shown to be safe and is associated with lower morbidity and mortality when compared with various open approaches. Specifically, it has been associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss, decreased complications, and reduced hospital length of stay. This is despite a rise in comorbid conditions associated with this patient population. This article describes our operative approach to laparoscopic giant paraesophageal hernia 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.

Initial Outcomes of Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernia Repair with Mesh

The use of mesh in laparoscopic paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair (LHR) may reduce the risk of late hernia recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate initial outcomes and recurrence rate of 92 patients who underwent LHR reinforced with a synthetic bioabsorbable mesh. Surgical approaches included LHR and Nissen fundoplication (n = 64), LHR without fundoplication (n = 10), reoperative LHR (n = 9), LHR with a bariatric operation (n = 6), and emergent LHR (n = 3). The mean length of hospital stay was 2 ± 3 days (range, 1 to 30 days). There were no conversions to open laparotomy and no intraoperative complications. One of 92 patients (1.1%) required intensive care unit stay. The 90-day mortality was zero. Minor complications occurred in 3.3 per cent, major complications in 2.2 per cent, and late complications in 5.5 per cent of patients. There were no perforations or early hernia recurrence. The 30-day reoperation rate was 1.1 per cent. For patients with available 1-year follow-up, the overall recurrence rate was 18.5 per cent with a mean follow-up of 30 months (range, 12 to 51 months). LHR repair with mesh is associated with low perioperative morbidity and no mortality. The use of bioabsorbable mesh appears to be safe with no early hiatal hernia recurrence or late mesh erosion. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the long-term rate of hernia recurrence associated with LHR with mesh.

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.