Routine use of mesh during hiatal closure is safe with no increase in adverse sequelae

Mesh reinforcement of paraesophageal hernia repair: Trends and outcomes from a national database

BACKGROUND

Placement of paraesophageal type of "mesh" in paraesophageal hernia repair is controversial. This study examines the trends and outcomes of mesh placement in paraesophageal hernia repair.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent paraesophageal hernia repair with or without mesh (2010-2017). Demographics, operative approach, and outcomes were compared over time.

RESULTS

Of 25,801, most paraesophageal hernia repair cases were elective (89.3%), without mesh (61.9%), and performed laparoscopically (91.3%).When compared with open paraesophageal hernia repair patients, the patients undergoing laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair had lesser rates of reoperation, readmission, mortality, overall complications and major complications (2.7% vs 4.8%, 6.2% vs 9.6%, 0.6% vs 2.9%, 7.1% vs 21.3%, 3.8% vs 11.1%, respectively; all P < .0001). Mesh placement was more common in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (38.9 vs 29.7, P < .0001) than opern paraesophageal hernia repair. During 2010-2017, mesh placement decreased from 46.2% to 35.2% of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (P < .0001). Operative times for laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair decreased over time, and laparoscpic paraesophageal hernia repair without mesh was consistently less (with mesh: 176.0 ± 71.0 to 149.9 ± 72.5 min, without mesh: 148.6 ± 71.4 to 134.6 ± 70.4). We observed no changes in comorbidities or adverse outcomes over time. Using multivariate analysis to control for potential confounding factors, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated most strongly with adverse outcomes, including mortality (OR 2.53, CI 1.55-4.14), any complications (OR 1.80, CI 1.51-2.16), major complications (OR 1.80, CI 1.51-2.16), readmission (OR 1.63, CI 1.33-1.99) and reoperation (OR 1.49, CI 1.10-2.02). Mesh placement was not associated with adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The placement of mesh during laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is not associated with adverse outcomes. Use of mesh with laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is decreasing with no apparent adverse impact on short-term patient outcomes. Further research is needed to investigate patient factors not captured by this national database, such as characteristics of the hernia, patient symptoms, and hernia recurrence.

Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernia Repair With Urinary Bladder Matrix Graft

Background and Objectives:

Paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair can be performed with or without mesh reinforcement. The use, technique, and mesh type remain controversial because of mixed reports on mesh-related complications. Short-term outcomes have become important in all forms of surgery.

Methods:

From January 2012 through April 2017, all patients who underwent isolated hiatal hernia repair in our center were reviewed. Concomitant bariatric surgery cases were excluded. Repairs reinforced by porcine urinary bladder matrix (UBM) graft were compared to non-UBM repairs. Statistical comparison was based on a Wilcoxon 2-sample test or Fisher's exact test.

Results:

We reviewed 239 charts; 110 bariatric cases and 8 cases with non-UBM reinforcement were excluded. We identified 121 patients: 56 UBM-reinforced (46.3%) versus 65 non-UBM (53.7%). Sixteen (28.6%) UBM cases were male versus 23 (35.4%) non-UBM cases. The UBM patients were significantly older (63.9 versus 54.3; P = .001). There was no difference in mean BMI (29.6 vs 28.5; P = .28). Cases were performed laparoscopically (60.7% vs 67.7%; P = .45) or robotically (39.3% vs 32.3%; P = .45), with no conversions to open. The UBM group had a longer mean operative time (183 minutes vs 139 minutes; P = .001).There was no difference in median length of stay (2 days vs 2 days; P = .09) or 30-day readmission rate (7.1% vs 7.5%; P =.99). Postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and there was no difference (19.6% vs 9.2%; P = .12).

Conclusions:

Hiatal hernia repair with UBM reinforcement can be performed safely with no increase in postoperative complications.