[Operative treatment of hiatus hernia : Evidence on mesh inlay]

[Hiatus hernia : Standards and controversies in diagnostics and treatment]

A hiatus hernia is defined as a transdiaphragmatic protrusion/migration of the intrabdominal contents through the esophageal hiatus of the diaphragm. The classification of hiatus hernias is based on anatomical morphological differentiation (types I-IV). The leading symptoms and psychological stress vary with respect to the symptoms, e. g. reflux and compression symptoms. Gastroscopy and multichannel intraluminal impedance pH measurement are obligatory preoperative functional diagnostics. A distinction is made between frequent type I hernia (antireflux surgery), symptomatic paraesophageal, thoracic and mixed hernia types (II-IV). Surgical indications exist in symptomatic type II-IV hernias. Hiatal mesh augmentation reduces recurrences. The complication potential of synthetic meshes must be taken into account. Biological implants show no advantages.

Follow Up Data of MRI-Visible Synthetic Meshes for Reinforcement in Large Hiatal Hernia in Comparison to None-Mesh Repair-A Prospective Cohort Study

Background: Mesh augmentation for large hiatal hernia is still controversial because of high alleged risk of chronic reaction or shrinkage of mesh orifice surrounding the esophagus. The aim of this cohort study was to develop and establish an image analysis scheme, including 3D reconstruction, for MRI-visible meshes (DynaMesh®) to measure postoperative mesh shrinkage in order to observe potential complications. Methods: Between 12/2012 and 10/2016, n = 33 patients underwent surgery to correct symptomatic hiatal hernia (implantation indicated: n = 18). Intraoperative measurement of the hiatal surface area (HSA) > 5 cm2 was indication for mesh implantation. Early postoperatively, and during long-term follow-up, MRI was performed and patients filled out the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI score). Results: Follow-up rate was 76% (n = 25/33). Overall recurrence rate was 4% (1/25). No other patient showed reflux or dysphagia symptoms. Mesh related complications were not observed during follow-up period. Median GIQLI score of patients with mesh was 123 (range: 67-144), and 93 (52-141) for patients without mesh. Comparison of early and mid-term postoperative MRI for patients with mesh showed changes in mesh orifice size of 3% (corresponding to a slight increase in size of about 6 mm2) without any significant correlations with BMI, HSA, or patient age. Conclusion: We established an image analysis and 3D reconstruction scheme for MRI visible meshes in hiatal hernia repair. MRI images of normal clinical quality are sufficient for this analysis. Mesh orifice size in MRI-visible meshes does not seem to change at a clinically relevant level in the small cohort observed here. Further studies of large cohorts are necessary to establish if HSA >5 cm2 could be a suitable measure for indication of mesh implantation.