Reoperative laparoscopic paraesophageal herniorrhaphy can produce excellent outcomes

SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of hiatal hernias

BACKGROUND

Hiatal hernia (HH) is a common condition. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of HH.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were conducted for four key questions regarding the treatment of HH in adults: surgical treatment of asymptomatic HH versus surveillance; use of mesh versus no mesh; performing a fundoplication versus no fundoplication; and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus redo fundoplication for recurrent HH. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology by subject experts. When the evidence was insufficient to base recommendations on, expert opinion was utilized instead. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.

RESULTS

The panel provided one conditional recommendation and two expert opinions for adults with HH. The panel suggested routinely performing a fundoplication in the repair of HH, though this was based on low certainty evidence. There was insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations regarding surgical repair of asymptomatic HH or conversion to RYGB in recurrent HH, and therefore, only expert opinions were offered. The panel suggested that select asymptomatic patients may be offered surgical repair, with criteria outlined. Similarly, it suggested that conversion to RYGB for management of recurrent HH may be appropriate in certain patients and again described criteria. The evidence for the routine use of mesh in HH repair was equivocal and the panel deferred making a recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of HH and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and consideration of patient values to optimize outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs will improve the evidence base and may allow for stronger recommendations in future evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of HH.

Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The surgical management of hiatal hernia remains controversial. We aimed to compare outcomes of mesh versus no mesh and fundoplication versus no fundoplication in symptomatic patients; surgery versus observation in asymptomatic patients; and redo hernia repair versus conversion to Roux-en-Y reconstruction in recurrent hiatal hernia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2000 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series (asymptomatic and recurrent hernias). Screening was performed by two trained independent reviewers. Pooled analyses were performed on comparative data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 45 studies from 5152 retrieved records. Only six RCTs had low risk of bias. Mesh was associated with a lower recurrence risk (RR = 0.50, 95%CI 0.28, 0.88; I2 = 57%) in observational studies but not RCTs (RR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.47, 2.02; I2 = 34%), and higher total early dysphagia based on five observational studies (RR = 1.44, 95%CI 1.10, 1.89; I2 = 40%) but was not statistically significant in RCTs (RR = 3.00, 95%CI 0.64, 14.16). There was no difference in complications, reintervention, heartburn, reflux, or quality of life. There were no appropriate studies comparing surgery to observation in asymptomatic patients. Fundoplication resulted in higher early dysphagia in both observational studies and RCTs ([RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.16, 3.76] and [RR = 20.58, 95%CI 1.34, 316.69]) but lower reflux in RCTs (RR = 0.31, 95%CI 0.17, 0.56, I2 = 0%). Conversion to Roux-en-Y was associated with a lower reintervention risk after 30 days compared to redo surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for optimal management of symptomatic and recurrent hiatal hernia remains controversial, underpinned by studies with a high risk of bias. Shared decision making between surgeon and patient is essential for optimal outcomes.

Critical appraisal of the impact of surgical repair of type II-IV paraoesophageal hernia (POH) on pulmonary improvement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Paraoesophageal hernia (POH) comprising type II-IV hiatal hernia often presents with pulmonary symptoms such as shortness of breath. However, impact of surgical repair on improvement in pulmonary symptoms is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at characterising impact of POH repair on patient reported improvement in pulmonary symptoms.

METHODS

This systematic review identified studies reported pulmonary symptoms in patients with undergoing surgical repair for Type II-IV POH from 1st January 2001 to 1st December 2018. Primary outcome was improvement in pulmonary symptoms. Secondary outcomes were improvement in other patient-reported outcomes such as heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain, and dysphagia and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

This systematic review identified 27 studies (n = 4428 patients) reporting assessment of pulmonary symptoms. However, only 21 studies (n = 2902 patients) reported preoperative and postoperative pulmonary symptoms and hence these were included in the final meta-analysis. There was significant improvement in pulmonary symptoms following POH repair (OR: 8.40, CI_95%: 4.91-14.35, p < 0.001), with improvement in all types of POH. Rates of overall and major complications were 16% and 5%, respectively. Rates of conversion, 30-day mortality, reoperation and recurrence were 2%, 1% 4% and 12% respectively.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrates that POH repair is associated with improvement in pulmonary symptoms with acceptable low laparoscopic conversion rates, morbidity, mortality and recurrence rates.

The choice of primary repair or mesh repair for paraesophageal hernia: a decision analysis based on utility scores

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists on the use of mesh in the repair of paraesophageal hernias (PEH). This debate centers around the type of mesh used, its value in preventing recurrence, its short- and long-term complications, and the consequences of those complications compared with primary repair. Decision analysis is a method to account for the important aspects of a clinical decision. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the addition of mesh would be superior in PEH repair.

METHODS

A decision analysis model of the choice between primary repair and mesh repair of a PEH was constructed. The essential features of the decision were the rate of perioperative complications, PEH recurrence rate, reoperation rate after recurrence, rate of symptomatic recurrence, and type of outcome after reoperation. The literature was reviewed to obtain data for the decision analysis and the average rates used in the baseline analysis. A utility score was used as the outcome measure, with a perfect outcome receiving a score of 100 and death 0. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine if changing the rates of recurrence or reoperation changed the dominant treatment.

RESULTS

Using the baseline analysis, mesh repair was slightly superior to primary repair (utility score 99.59 vs 99.12, respectively). However, if recurrence rates were similar, primary repair would be slightly superior; whereas if reoperation rates were similar, mesh repair would be superior. Using sensitivity analysis, there are combinations of recurrence rates and reoperation rates that would make one repair superior to the other. However, these differences are relatively small.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on what the decision-maker accepts as the recurrence and reoperation rates for these types of repair, either mesh or primary repair may be the treatment of choice. However, the differences between the two are small, and, perhaps, clinically inconsequential.