Hiatal hernia repair: prevention of mesh erosion and migration into the esophagogastric junction

Mesh migration into esophagogastric junction after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair; how to prevent it? A case report

Although the use of mesh reinforcement during large hiatal hernia repair may reduce the rate of recurrence, various mesh-related complications have been reported. A 65-year-old woman presented with dysphagia. The patient was diagnosed with a large hiatal hernia and treated with laparoscopic fundoplication and Collis gastroplasty with mesh repair. Six months after surgery, the patient presented with dysphagia and vomiting. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed migration of mesh material into the esophagogastric junction. We performed a proximal gastrectomy with mesh removal. The patient was discharged without any postoperative complications. Herein, we encountered a rare case requiring surgical treatment to resolve mesh-induced esophagogastric perforation after hiatal hernia repair. Mesh-associated complications, such as erosion or migration, should be considered as they may be more common than previously reported. Additionally, these complications are currently underscored in clinical practice. Regarding mesh applications, symptoms of mesh-related complications, such as dysphagia, should be carefully monitored for early detection.

IMPACT OF BODY MASS INDEX ON PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES FOR COMPLEX HIATUS HERNIA BY VIDEOLAPAROSCOPY

BACKGROUND:

The influence of body mass index on perioperative complications of hiatal hernia surgery is controversial in the surgical literature.

AIMS:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of body mass index on perioperative complications and associated risk factors for its occurrence.

METHODS:

Two groups were compared on the basis of body mass index: group A with body mass index <32 kg/m² and group B with body mass index ³32 kg/m². A multivariate analysis was carried out to identify independent predictors for complications. Complications were classified based on the Clavien-Dindo score.

RESULTS:

A total of 49 patients were included in this study, with 30 in group A and 19 in group B. The groups were compared based on factors, such as age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, surgical techniques used, type and location of hiatal hernia, and length of stay. Findings showed that 70% of patients had complex hiatal hernia. In addition, 14 complications also occurred: 7 pleuropulmonary and 7 requiring reoperation. From the seven reoperated, there were three recurrences, two gastrointestinal fistulas, one diaphragmatic hernia, and one incisional hernia. Complications were similar in both the groups, with type IV hiatal hernia being the only independent predictor.

CONCLUSIONS:

Body mass index does not affect perioperative complications in anti-reflux surgery and type IV hiatal hernia is an independent predictor of its occurrence.

A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh

INTRODUCTION

Mesh implants are regularly used to help repair both hiatus hernias (HH) and diaphragmatic hernias (DH). In vivo studies are used to test not only mesh safety, but increasingly comparative efficacy. Our work examines the field of in vivo mesh testing for HH and DH models to establish current practices and standards.

METHOD

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO. Medline and Embase databases were searched for relevant in vivo studies. Forty-four articles were identified and underwent abstract review, where 22 were excluded. Four further studies were excluded after full-text review-leaving 18 to undergo data extraction.

RESULTS

Of 18 studies identified, 9 used an in vivo HH model and 9 a DH model. Five studies undertook mechanical testing on tissue samples-all uniaxial in nature. Testing strip widths ranged from 1-20 mm (median 3 mm). Testing speeds varied from 1.5-60 mm/minute. Upon histology, the most commonly assessed structural and cellular factors were neovascularisation and macrophages respectively (n = 9 each). Structural analysis was mostly qualitative, where cellular analysis was equally likely to be quantitative. Eleven studies assessed adhesion formation, of which 8 used one of four scoring systems. Eight studies measured mesh shrinkage.

DISCUSSION

In vivo studies assessing mesh for HH and DH repair are uncommon. Within this relatively young field, we encourage surgical and materials testing institutions to discuss its standardisation.

BETWEEN PROLENE®, ULTRAPRO® AND BARD SOFT® MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL?

BACKGROUND

In the definition of the mesh to be used to correct hernias, porosity, amount of absorbable material and polypropylene should be considered in the different stages of healing process.

AIM

To evaluate the inflammatory reaction in the use of macro and microporous meshes of high and low weight in the repair of defects in the abdominal wall of rats.

METHODS

Ninety Wistar rats (Rattus norvegicus albinus) were used. The animals were submitted to similar surgical procedures, with lesion of the ventral abdominal wall, maintaining the integrity of the parietal peritoneum and correction using the studied meshes (Prolene®, Ultrapro® and Bard Soft®). Euthanasia was performed at 30, 60 and 120 days after surgery. The abdominal wall segments were submitted to histological analysis using H&E, Masson's trichrome, immunohistochemistry, picrosirius red and tensiometric evaluation.

RESULTS

On the 120th day, the tensiometric analysis was superior with Ultrapro® macroporous mesh. The inflammatory process score showed a significant prevalence of subacute process at the beginning and at the end of the study. Microporous meshes showed block encapsulation and in macroporous predominance of filamentous encapsulation.

CONCLUSION

The Ultrapro® mesh showed better performance than the others in healing process of the abdominal wall.