Repair Of Large Hiatal Hernias Research Articles

Risk factors associated with radiological and clinical recurrences after laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernia with TiO2Mesh™ reinforcement.

Laparoscopic repair of large para-esophageal hiatal hernias (LPHH) remains controversial. Several meta-analyses suggest hiatus reinforcement with mesh has better outcomes over cruroplasty in terms of less recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the medium-term results of treating LPHH with a biosynthetic monofilament polypropylene mesh coated with titanium dioxide to enhance biocompatibility (TiO2Mesh™). A retrospective observational study, using data extracted from a prospectively collected database was performed at XXX from December 2014 to June 2023. Included participants were all patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of large (> 5cm) type III hiatal hernia in which a TiO2Mesh™ was used. The results of the study, including clinical and radiological recurrences as well as mesh-related morbidity, were analyzed. Sixty-seven patients were finally analyzed. Laparoscopic approach was attempted in all but conversion was needed in one patient because of bleeding in the lesser curvature. With a median follow-up of 41months (and 10 losses to follow-up), 22% of radiological recurrences and 19.3% of clinical recurrences were described. Regarding complications, one patient presented morbidity associated with the mesh (mesh erosion requiring endoscopic extraction). Recurrent hernia repair was an independent factor of clinical recurrence (OR 4.57 95% CI (1.28-16.31)). LPHH with TiO2Mesh™ is safe and feasible with a satisfactory medium-term recurrence and a low complication rate. Prospective randomized studies are needed to establish the standard repair of LPHH.

Quality of life following repair of large hiatal hernia is not influenced by the use of mesh-Longer-term follow-up from a randomized trial.

The use of prosthetic mesh in laparoscopic repair of large hiatus hernias remains controversial. Clinical and quality of life outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of mesh versus suture repair previously showed few differences at early follow-up. This study evaluated longer-term quality of life outcomes from that trial. A prospective, multicentre, double blind randomized controlled trial assessed three methods of repair for large hiatus hernias: sutures-only versus absorbable mesh versus non-absorbable mesh. Quality of life was assessed using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire which was completed preoperatively and then at 3, 6, 12months following surgery and annually thereafter. SF-36 outcomes were compared across the three repair techniques at longer-term follow-up (3-6years), and to earlier baseline and 12-month outcomes. 126 patients were randomized; 43-suture-only, 41-absorbable mesh and 42-non-absorbable mesh. Questionnaires were completed by 118 patients preoperatively, 115 at 12months and 98 at longer-term follow-up (median 5years). There were no significant differences between the repair techniques for the subscale and composite scores at longer-term follow-up. The mental component score improved significantly after surgery and was sustained across follow-up for all techniques. The physical component score also improved significantly but was lower at longer-term follow-up compared to the 12-month follow up in both mesh groups. Surgical repair of large hiatus hernias provides sustained long-term improvement in quality of life. The addition of mesh does not improve quality of life. This trial is registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000725662.

PHASIX™ ST MESH FOR CRURAL REINFORCEMENT DURING GIANT HIATAL HERNIA REPAIR: PRESENTATION OF SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Abstract Aim Crural mesh reinforcement during large hiatal hernia repair has been advocated to defend against early recurrences. However, the optimal mesh material and configuration remain in question. This study presents the rationale and surgical technique for crural repair augmentation using Phasix™ ST Mesh. Methods We present a case of a giant hiatal hernia and outline the rationale and surgical technique for using Phasix™ ST Mesh in the repair. Results A 72-year-old man presented with a giant type IV hiatal hernia. A massive mediastinal protrusion of intra-abdominal fat and viscera, and an associated crucial cardiorespiratory compromise were noted. A preoperative CT scan revealed a widened hiatus measuring 9.2 × 7.6 cm. The patient underwent laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair and Nissen fundoplication. During the procedure, following visceral reduction and hernia sac dissection and excision, a widened round hiatus and significantly thinned crura were found. To reinforce the primary crural suturing, two strips of Phasix™ ST Mesh, each measuring 1.5 × 4 cm, were used, and a U-shaped mesh was placed onlay to augment the repair. The procedure lasted 214 minutes, and the patient was discharged on the 3rd postoperative day without complications. Conclusions The application of Phasix™ ST Mesh in the repair of giant hiatal hernias offers the dual benefits of reconstructing the original anatomy and reinforcing the hiatus, while avoiding the implantation of permanent foreign material around the esophagus.

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

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). 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. 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. 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.

Evidence mapping on how to perform an optimal surgical repair of large hiatal hernias

BackgroundSymptomatic and large hiatal hernia (HH) is a common disorder requiring surgical management. However, there is a lack of systematic, evidence-based recommendations summarizing recent reviews on surgical treatment of symptomatic HH. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to create evidence mapping on the key technical issues of HH repair based on the highest available evidence.MethodsA systematic review identified studies on eight key issues of large symptomatic HH repair. The literature was screened for the highest level of evidence (LE from level 1 to 5) according to the Oxford Center for evidence-based medicine’s scale. For each topic, only studies of the highest available level of evidence were considered.ResultsOut of the 28.783 studies matching the keyword algorithm, 47 were considered. The following recommendations could be deduced: minimally invasive surgery is the recommended approach (LE 1a); a complete hernia sac dissection should be considered (LE 3b); extensive division of short gastric vessels cannot be recommended; however, limited dissection of the most upper vessels may be helpful for a floppy fundoplication (LE 1a); vagus nerve should be preserved (LE 3b); a dorso-ventral cruroplasty is recommended (LE 1b); routine fundoplication should be considered to prevent postoperative gastroesophageal reflux (LE 2b); posterior partial fundoplication should be favored over other forms of fundoplication (LE 1a); mesh augmentation is indicated in large HH with paraesophageal involvement (LE 1a).ConclusionThe current evidence mapping is a reasonable instrument based on the best evidence available to guide surgeons in determining optimal symptomatic and large HH repair.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of type II, III and IV hiatal hernias: A retrospective study comparing adverse outcomes

ObjectiveRobotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is continuing to expand in use in surgical specialties, including foregut surgery. The available data on its use in large hiatal hernia (HH) repair are limited and conflicting. This study sought to determine whether there are significant differences in adverse outcomes following HH repair performed with a robotic approach vs. a laparoscopic approach. This study was limited to outcomes in patients with type II, III, and IV HHs, as these hernias are typically more challenging to repair. MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed from data obtained from TriNetX, a large deidentified clinical database, over a 10-year period. Adult patients who underwent type II, III, or IV HH repair were included in the study. HH with robotic repair was compared to laparoscopic repair. Cohorts were propensity score matched for demographic information and comorbidities. Risk ratios, risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and t test for each examined adverse outcome were used to estimate the effects of robotic repair vs. laparoscopic repair. ResultsIn total, 20,016 patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified; 1,515 patients utilized RAS, and 18,501 used laparoscopy. Prior to matching, there were significant differences in age, sex, comorbidity, and BMI between the two cohorts. After 1:1 propensity score matching, analyses of 1,514 well-matched patient pairs revealed no significant differences in demographics or comorbidities. Patients who underwent robotic repair were more likely to experience major complications, including venous thromboembolism (RD: 0.007, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.011; p = 0.002), critical care (RD: 0.023, 95% CI: 0.007, 0.039; p = 0.004), urinary/renal complications (RD: 0.027, 95% CI: 0.014, 0.041; p < 0.001), and respiratory complications (RD: 0.046, 95% CI: 0.028, 0.064; p < 0.001). RAS was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay (32.4 ± 27.5 h vs. 35.7 ± 50.1 h, p = 0.031), although this finding indicated a reduction in the length of stay of less than 4 hours. No statistically significant differences in risk of esophageal perforation, infection, postprocedural shock, bleeding, mortality, additional emergency room visits, cardiac complications, or wound disruption were found. ConclusionsPatients who undergo robotic-assisted large HH repair are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism, need critical care, urinary or renal complications and respiratory complications. Due to variations in RAS technique, experience, and surgical volumes, further study of this surgical approach and complication rates is warranted.

Surgical Repair of Large Hiatal Hernias: Insight from a High-Volume Center

BackgroundLaparoscopic-assisted hiatal hernia (HH) repair is safe and effective; however, it is unclear whether hernia size affects perioperative outcomes and whether a watch-and-wait strategy is appropriate for patients with asymptomatic large HHs. We aimed to investigate these issues. MethodsAfter IRB approval, we queried our prospectively maintained database for patients who underwent primary laparoscopic HH repair at our center between August 2016 and December 2019. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon (SKM). According to the intraoperative findings, HHs were divided into four groups: small (S-HH), medium (M-HH), large (L-HH), or giant (G-HH) when the percentage of herniated stomach was 0% (sliding), < 50%, 50–75%, or > 75%, respectively. Perioperative and mid-term outcomes were analyzed. ResultsA total of 170 patients were grouped: S-HH (n = 46), M-HH (n = 69), L-HH (n = 20), and G-HH (n = 35) with mean age of 58.5.6 ± 11.0, 61.9 ± 11.3, 70.7 ± 10.3, and 72.6±9.7 years (p < 0.001), respectively. Compared to M-HH patients, L-HH patients had significantly longer hospital stays (mean 2.8±3.2 vs 1.4±0.91 days; p = 0.001) and more postoperative complications (6/20 [30.0%] vs 3/69 [4.3%]; OR 6.9, 95% CI 5.4–8.4, p < 0.001). At a mean follow-up time of 43.1±25.0 and 43.5±21.6 months for the combined S/M-HH and L/G-HH groups, GERD-Health-Related Quality of Life scores were comparable (S/M-HH: 6.5±10.9 vs L/G-HH: 7.1 ± 11.3; p = 0.63). There was no perioperative mortality. ConclusionsHHs likely grow with age, reflecting their progressive nature. Laparoscopic L-HH repair was associated with higher morbidity than M-HH repair. Thus, patients with M-HH, even if less symptomatic, should be evaluated by a foregut surgeon. Regardless of HH size, good mid- and long-term quality of life outcomes can be achieved.

Role of Mesh in the Reinforcement of the Primary Repair of Large Hiatal Hernia

Abstract Background The incidence of hiatal hernias increases with age. Approximately 55%-60% of individuals over the age of 50 have a hiatal hernia. However, only about 9% have symptoms, and it depends on the type and competency of the lower esophageal sphincter. Aim of the Work In our study, an objective observational study was made regarding post operative short term mesh related complications possible to develop in patients underwent hiatal repair of large hiatal hernia with mesh rienforcement. Patients and Methods An observational cohort (retrospective and prospective) study regarding the post operative mesh related complications in patients who underwent Large diaphragmatic hernia repair with mesh application. The study was conducted at Ain Shams University Hospitals, Al-Demerdash, Department of General surgery. Approval of the research ethics Committee of medicine and general surgery department at faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University as well as a written informed consent from all participants was obtained. The study was conducted on 15 patients over a period of six months, starting from date of approval of the protocol by the faculty and the university committee at 10/7/2021. Results Five patients (33.3%) complained about dysphagia postoperatively. In one case, the symptoms declined spontaneously within 6 months was grade 1. Another patient successfully underwent esophageal dilatation of a stenosis 2 months postoperatively was grade 2. Up to this date, two patients (13.3%) still report mild dysphagia but maintain normal body weight were grade 3. Three cases report persistent intraabdominal discomfort without weight loss described as bloating. Two patients experienced heartburn, while another patient reported respiratory compromise in the form dyspnea due to already huge hiatal defect with lung collapse present preoperatively. Conclusion Laparoscopic large hiatal/paraesophageal hernia repair with prosthetic meshes as well as laparoscopic antireflux surgery with prosthetic hiatal closure are safe and effective procedures to prevent hiatal hernia recurrence and/or postoperative intrathoracic wrap migration, with low complication rates and mesh fixation is indicated in patients with large hiatal hernial defect &amp;gt; 5 cm.

Mesh-Enforced Repair and Anterior Fundoplication in Large Hiatal Hernias: Few Side-Effects and a High Patient Satisfaction – The Best Way to Go?

Abstract Background Nissen and Toupet fundoplication are the predominant procedures in the treatment of large hiatal hernias. Nevertheless, these techniques may cause relevant side-effects such as increased bloating or dysphagia, thus impairing the patient's quality of life. Aims To evaluate the mid-term outcome after mesh-enforced hiatoplasty and anterior fundoplication in large hiatal hernia repair. Methods Prospective single-center study investigating the clinical, endoscopic and radiological outcome after laparoscopic, mesh-enforced hiatoplasty and anterior fundoplication in patients with large hiatal hernias. Results Ninety-nine patients were operated between 2012–2022 and met all the inclusion criteria including postoperative computed tomography (CT). 68% were female, mean age was 71 ± 10 years, 72% of the patients needed proton pump inhibitors (PPI) prior to surgery. In all patients, more than 20% of the stomach was located supra diaphragmatic, in 65% more than 50% of the stomach was herniated. Mean operation time was 152 ± 45 minutes, there were no major intraoperative complications and one short-term postoperative complication demanding operative revision due to early recurrence. Mean length of stay was 5.1 ± 1.9 days. Upper endoscopy was performed in 94% after 16 weeks and showed a correct position in all cases. Clinical and CT follow-up were obtained in all patients after 1.6 ± 1 years. 87% had a correct position of the fundoplication in CT, 6% had a slippage and 7% a recurrent hernia. Two patients needed operative revision. 84% of patients reported their clinical outcome as excellent, 10% as good. Mean Gastrointestinal Qualitiy of Life Index was 126 ± 14. 98% of patients would perform the surgery again. Conclusions Mesh-enforced hiatoplasty and anterior fundoplication in large hiatal hernia repair is safe and leads to a high rate of patient satisfaction. The radiological outcome poorly correlates with clinical symptoms or patient reported outcome.

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

To compare the difference in outcomes in laparoscopic large hiatus hernia (LHH) repair using suture-based and mesh-based repair techniques. 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, > 5cm 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. 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 > 2cm (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. 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 (> 2cm) or reoperation rate. If the synthetic mesh is to be used patients need to be informed of the risk of mesh erosion.

OGBN O01 Laparoscopic large hiatus hernia repair with mesh versus suture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Whilst the use of laparoscopy in the repair of large hiatus hernia (LHH) has become mainstream, the prevention of post operative hernia recurrence and other adverse events has remained a challenge. Mesh reinforcement of suture cruroplasty has been considered as a potential solution. However the paucity of well constructed and powered randomised control trials (RCT) with long term followup makes an assessment of its real impact difficult. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of mesh reinforcement of LHH repair, with regards to postoperative outcomes. Methods A systematic search of articles was conducted in PubMed, Medline and Embase using the PRISMA guidelines. RCTs and observational studies (OS) comparing recurrences and reoperations in those patients with LHH (&amp;gt;30% stomach in chest, &amp;gt;5cm hiatal defect, hiatal surface area &amp;gt;10 mm2) repair who had mesh vs no mesh were assessed quantitatively. The impact of mesh on significant intraoperative/postoperative surgical complications and mortality were qualitatively assessed. Results Pooled data included five RCTs and fourteen OS with 1670 patients (824 with no mesh, 846 with mesh). There was a significant reduction in total recurrence rate with mesh (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80, p = 0.007). Mesh use did not cause significant reduction in recurrences &amp;gt;2cm (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.67, p = 0.83) or significant reduction in reoperation rates (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.07, p = 0.09). None of the meshes were found to significantly reduce recurrence or reoperation rate on subgroup analysis, although the number of studies using a single mesh type was limited. Major morbidity rates associated with LHH repair included mesh erosion with foregut resection (from synthetic mesh) and esophageal perforation and were 0.71% and 0.36% respectively. An overall mortality rate of 0.3% was found in the pooled patients. Conclusions Mesh reinforcement in LHH is protective against total recurrence. However there is no significant reduction in large recurrences (&amp;gt;2cm) or reoperation rate. If synthetic mesh is to be used patients need to be informed of the risk of mesh erosion.

Quality of life after hiatal hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh PhasixTM

Abstract Hiatal hernias are one of the most common types of hernia, which are found in 55–60% patients over 50 years, but only 9% are symptomatic. In most cases hiatal hernia manifests with the signs of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and is managed with lifestyle changes and proton pump inhibitors. In some cases, surgical therapy is indicated. Usually, surgical repair includes cruroplasty and fundoplication; however, the recurrence rate is up to 42%. Mesh reinforcement helps to decrease recurrence rate, but may lead to a development of visceral adhesions, erosions, mesh migration or infection. To avoid these complications, a new completely resorbable mesh PhasixTM is offered in the market. The aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of life (QoL), complications, and patient satisfaction after large hiatal hernia repair with PhasixTM mesh at 1-year follow-up. All the patients were satisfied with the surgery. The median GERD Health Related QoL index was 6.5 points, which is significantly less than before surgery — 29.5 points (p = 0.04). There were no mesh related complications and no clinical data of recurrence. Hiatal hernia repair with slowly resorbable biosynthetic mesh PhasixTM has acceptable results in terms of GERD Health Related QoL, complications and patient satisfaction at one-year follow-up.

Tension-Free Hiatal Hernia Repair Using Ligamentum Teres in Paraoesophageal Hernia Treatment

AbstractIntroductionType II and III (paraoesophageal and mixed) hiatal hernia treatment remains a technically difficult procedure carrying a risk of complications and recurrence as high as 40%. Using synthetic meshes entails possible serious complications; efficacy of biologic materials remains unclear and requires further research.AimThe aim of the article was to present the centres experience of type II and III large hiatal hernia treatment using the ligamentum teres and to draw attention to potential benefits of conducted procedures.Material and MethodsThe study enrolled 6 patients: 3 women and 3 men aged 37-58 with radiologically and endoscopically confirmed large paraoesophageal hernias. The patients underwent Nissen fundoplication and hiatal hernia repair using the ligamentum teres. The patients were followed up for six months with subsequent radiological and endoscopic assessment.ResultsDuring the six-month follow-up no clinical or radiological characteristics of hiatal hernia recurrence were observed in the patients. Two patients reported symptoms of dysphagia; mortality was 0%.ConclusionsHiatal hernia repair using the vascularized ligamentum teres may constitute an effective and safe method of large hiatal hernia repair.

Large hiatus hernia: time for a paradigm shift?

BackgroundLaparoscopic 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsFirst, 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.

Surgical treatment of large and complicated hiatal hernias with the new resorbable mesh with hydrogel barrier (Phasix™ ST): a preliminary study.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the new monofilament fully resorbable mesh with hydrogel barrier (Phasix™ ST), for large and complex hiatal hernia repair. Between December 2017 and December 2020, 60 patients with large or complicated hiatal hernia were treated (40 robotic and 20 laparoscopic procedures). The mesh was placed after primary closure of the hiatal defect, in an onlay fashion around the esophagus, followed by 360o fundoplication. Follow-up at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24months from intervention included clinical evaluation and upper GI endoscopy. In cases of recurrence, radiologic survey and manometry were utilized. There were no conversions to open repair or significant postoperative incidents. Over a median follow-up of 21months (range 3-36), no recurrences or mesh related complications were observed. From our early experience, Phasix™ ST mesh seems to be safe and effective for the reinforcement of crural defects in large and complex hiatal hernia.

MEASUREMENT OF FORCE DURING LAPAROSCOPIC CRURORAPHY TO DEFINE INDICATION TO MESH IMPLANTS

The aim of the study was to study the indications for the use of mesh implants in patients with large hiatal hernias, depending on the tension of the crura. Materials and methods. Using a Walcom Fm-204-50k digital force gauge, we measured the force of crural tension during laparoscopic cruroraphy in 115 patients who met the inclusion criteria for participation in the study. All patients underwent intraoperative measurement of the tension force of the crura during the crura repair. All patients, whose tensile strength during measurement was &gt; 4 N (n=69), were randomly divided into two groups. The first group included 30 patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair using a collagen-coated Parietex mesh implant. The second group included 39 patients who underwent simple suturing of the crura (cruroraphy). Results. The main and control groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, gender, quality indicator and the area of hiatal surface (p&gt;0.05). According to the results of measuring the tension of the sutures during cruroraphy, the average tensile force of the suture closest to the esophagus was 5.2 (from 4.0 to 8.2 N). When performing anterior cruroraphy, the tensile force of the seams averaged 3.5 N (from 2.4 to 4.7 N). Over an average follow-up period of 48 months, anatomical relapses were revealed in 1 patient of group I and in 6 patients of group II (p=0.004). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the mesh implant group (p=0.004). The mesh group showed a greater improvement in GERD-HRQL (p&lt;0.0001) compared to the non-mesh group. Conclusion. Laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias using a collagen-coated Parietex mesh implant in patients with a cruraraphy suture pull force &gt; 4 N is safe and can prevent anatomical recurrence. Key words: hernia of the esophageal orifice of the diaphragm, laparoscopic cruroraphy, measuring the tension of the seams of the cruroraphy.

Plastic for diaphragmal hernia

Aim. The article discusses the results of a study using a patented method of two-layer laparoscopic repair of large and giant hiatal hernias using a biocarbon implant in comparison with other surgical techniques.Materials and methods. 716 patients were divided into 3 study groups based on the area of the size of the esophageal hernia defect: group I (314 patients) – with small (less than 5 cm2) and medium (5–10 cm2) hiatal hernias, that is, up to 10 cm2, which hernioplasty was performed only by the method of posterior cruraphy; group II (323 patients) – with large hernias 10–20 cm2: subgroup 1 (92 patients) underwent posterior cruraphy, subgroup 2 (231 patients) – alloplasty. Depending on the alloplasty technique, subgroup 2, in turn, was divided: subgroup A (89 people) – hernioplasty with a polypropylene implant and subgroup B (142 people) – hernioplasty with a medical biocarbon construction. Study group III (79 patients) – patients with giant diaphragmatic hernias of more than 20 cm2 using alloplasty: subgroup A (29 people) – hernioplasty with a polypropylene implant and subgroup B (50 patients) – alloplasty with a medical biocarbon construction.Results. When comparing group I with subgroup 1 of group II, the following results were obtained. Statistically significant differences were found in the degrees and types of diaphragmatic hernias. The average age of patients and statistical differences for it were insignificant. When comparing subgroup 1 with subgroup 2 of group II, statistically insignificant differences were found in the degrees and types of hiatal hernias. The difference in the average age of patients was also statistically insignificant. The difference in the average age of patients was also statistically insignificant. When comparing subgroup A with subgroup B of group II, statistically insignificant differences were found among themselves in the degrees and types of hiatal hernias. When comparing subgroup 2 of group II with group III, the difference turned out to be statistically significant in the distribution of patients by types and degrees of diaphragmatic hernias. When comparing subgroup A with subgroup B of group III by degrees and types of hiatal hernias, statistically insignificant differences were revealed.Conclusion. Posterior cruraphia in small and medium diaphragmatic hernias had significant statistical differences in types and degrees compared to that in large hernias, as well as in the average area of the hernial defect. Posterior cruraphia with hernioplasty in large hiatal hernias did not differ statistically significantly according to any of the criteria. Plastic surgery with a polypropylene implant with alloplasty of a biocarbon implant for large hernias did not differ significantly according to any of the criteria. Hernioplasty for large hiatal hernias, when compared with giant hernias, differed significantly only in the degree and type, as well as in the area of the hernial defect. «Onlay» plastic surgery with a polypropylene implant with alloplasty of biocarbon structures for giant hernias did not differ significantly according to any of the criteria, except for gender distribution, which did not have significant fundamental significance, which made it possible to make a more correct comparison of the results of surgical interventions in these research subgroups.

Repair of Large Hiatal Hernias With the Use of Mesh and Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma.

According to recent studies, large hiatal hernias (HH) can be associated with a lower content of type-I and type-III collagen in the phrenoesophageal ligament (POL). We therefore hypothesize that the use of a mesh implant with autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for repair of large HH would have a positive effect on long-term outcome.The purpose of our study was to determine the level of type-I and type-III collagens in the POL of patients with large HH with the aim of improving the technique of HH repair. During the first phase of the study, the collagen content within the POL was assessed in 18 patients with HH and 14 cadaveric specimens without HH. During the second phase, 54 patients with large HH (defined as 10 to 20 cm2), that required surgery were recruited. Laparoscopic repair involved use of a nonabsorbable self-fixating ProGrip mesh infiltrated with 2 to 4 mL of autologous PRP was used for reinforcement of crural repair. Results were assessed using endoscopy, barium swallow, 24-hour impedance-pH monitoring and a quality of life gastroesophageal reflux disease-health related quality of life questionnaire. The content of collagen within POL in patients with HH was significantly lower than in the cadaveric specimens without HH. Of the 54 patients undergoing HH repair, all procedures were performed laparoscopically and there were no mortalities in this group. At 48 months, only 2 HH recurrences (3.7%) were detected. During this period, the mean gastroesophageal reflux disease-health related quality of life score decreased from 15.7±5.5 to 5.9±0.6 (P<0.05). Our study has shown that the collagen content is reduced in patients with large HH; thus, it is advisable to use mesh for HH repair in such patients. Use of mesh infiltrated in PRP is safe and can have positive impact on results of HH repair.

634 ROBOTIC-ASSISTED HIATAL HERNIA AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL DISEASE SURGERY: INITIAL RESULTS AND EXPERIENCE IN A SINGLE INSTITUTION

Abstract Gastroesophageal reflux disease, associated with sliding or large paraesophageal hiatal hernia, represents a common disease that frequently needs a surgical solution. The repair of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias is still a challenge in minimally invasive surgery but the robotic approach seems to gain widespread acceptance because offers enhanced visualization, dexterity and reach, which may facilitate the hiatal reconstruction and mediastinal dissection. Methods Between June 2019 and February 2021, 23 patients (5 male, 18 female) underwent robotic approach fundoplication (19 sliding hernia, 3 paraesophageal and 2 gastroesophagic reflux) after being pre operative diagnosed. All surgeries were elective. Biosynthetic tissue absorbable mesh was applied in one patient with double time recurrence hernia. Sixteen patients underwent total fundoplication (Nissen), 6 patients had Toupet fundoplication, and one patient had hiatus repair without fundoplication. Results The mean age of the patients was 61 years. Biosynthetic mesh was used in one patient. The mean operative time was 127 minutes (80-240) and no intraoperative complications were described. There were no conversions to open or laparoscopic procedures. Nine of the twenty-three patients underwent redo hiatal hernia repairs and the mean hospital stay was 2 days. Only one patient had a major complication (Clavien Dindo 3b) requiring urgent surgery. The early and 30 day mortality rate was 0%. Conclusion In our experience, robotic approach to paraesophageal repair seems safe and effective with low complication rates even in high-risk patients and those with redo surgery. Subjectively, the robotic approach provides the surgeon better vision and maneuverability during the intervention. We hope to progressively increase the number of robotic cases to analyse long-term clinical outcomes such as hiatal hernia recurrences, need of medical therapy and quality of life.

Sutured Versus Mesh-augmented Hiatus Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This meta-analysis systematically reviewed published randomized control trials comparing sutured versus mesh-augmented hiatus hernia (HH) repair. Our primary endpoint was HH recurrence at short- and long-term follow-up. Secondary endpoints were: surgical complications, operative times, dysphagia and quality of life. Repair of large HHs is increasingly being performed. However, there is no consensus for the optimal technique for hiatal closure between sutured versus mesh-augmented (absorbable or nonabsorbable) repair. A systematic review of Medline, Scopus (which encompassed Embase), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies comparing mesh-augmented versus sutured HH repair. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Seven randomized control trials were found which compared mesh-augmented (nonabsorbable mesh: n = 296; absorbable mesh: n = 92) with sutured repair (n = 347). There were no significant differences for short-term hernia recurrence (defined as 6-12 months, 10.1% mesh vs 15.5% sutured, P = 0.22), long-term hernia recurrence (defined as 3-5 years, 30.7% mesh vs 31.3% sutured, P = 0.69), functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. The only statistically significant difference was that the mesh repair required a longer operation time (P = 0.05, OR 2.33, 95% confidence interval 0.03-24.69). Mesh repair for HH does not offer any advantage over sutured hiatal closure. As both techniques deliver good and comparable clinical outcomes, a suture only technique is still an appropriate approach.