Mesh-related complications in paraoesophageal repair: a systematic review

Comparison of short-term clinical efficacy and safety between biological and synthetic meshes in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: a single-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal choice of mesh material in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair (LHHR) is debated. This study aimed to compare the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of biological versus synthetic meshes in LHHR.

METHODS

In a prospective, single-center randomized controlled trial conducted from January 2020 to December 2022, 124 patients undergoing LHHR were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the biological mesh group (n = 62) or the synthetic mesh group (n = 62). The biological mesh group received non-crosslinked biological mesh, while the synthetic mesh group received polypropylene anti-adhesion mesh for hiatal closure reinforcement. Randomization was computer-generated. Baseline characteristics were collected, and patients were followed up at 6, 12, and 18 months postoperatively through telephone interviews or outpatient visits. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia, assessed by gastroscopy and upper gastrointestinal contrast radiography. Secondary outcomes included symptom improvement evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire, as well as quality of life improvements. The safety of mesh was assessed by recording mesh-related complications.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. At 18 months, the recurrence rate was 1.92% in the synthetic mesh group and 9.26% in the biological mesh group (P = 0.225). At 6 months, the biological mesh group reported significantly less early satiety compared to the synthetic mesh group (0.35 ± 1.09 vs. 0.95 ± 1.99; P = 0.046). Conversely, at 18 months, early satiety was lower in the synthetic mesh group compared to the biological mesh group (0.31 ± 1.35 vs. 1.04 ± 2.21; P = 0.043). No significant differences were observed between the groups for other symptoms or SF-36 domains at any time point (all P > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in some symptoms and quality of life from preoperative to postoperative assessments (P < 0.05). No mesh-related complications were reported in either group throughout the 18-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both biological and synthetic meshes are effective and safe for use in LHHR, demonstrating similar recurrence rates and improvements in symptoms and quality of life over an 18-month period. The choice of mesh may influence early satiety at different postoperative intervals, suggesting that individualized mesh selection based on patient-specific factors may enhance postoperative outcomes.

Case Report: Total intragastric mesh migration six years after diaphragmatic rupture and hiatal hernia surgery

Background

Mesh implementation to repair the hiatal space is already justified. Nevertheless, the use of this procedure is debated in regard of complications that may occur. Mesh erosion and migration are considered the most serious complications of mesh repairs.

Case presentation

It has not yet been well described in the literature. We describe a case of mesh erosion of stomach, many years later after a prosthetic repair of a diaphragmatic rupture associated to hiatal hernia, is presented here because of its rarity.

Conclusion

Few explanations have been put forward to explain this incident. Could it be due to inflammatory processes, or to the composition of the Meshes? As yet, there is no definitive explanation.

ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF MESH MIGRATION FOLLOWING HIATAL HERNIA REPAIR

BACKGROUND

The use of mesh in the repair of large hiatal hernias is still controversial. One of the most feared adverse events related to the use of mesh is erosion into the esophageal and gastric walls.

AIMS

To record the endoscopic treatment of mesh that has migrated into the gastric lumen after surgical treatment of hiatal hernia.

METHODS

The technical option was to wait for the progressive migration of the mesh into the gastric lumen, monitoring with upper digestive endoscopy, with removal by traction at the best time, with the aid of foreign body forceps.

RESULTS

The mesh was completely removed, and the evolution was satisfactory, without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mesh migration into the stomach who are oligosymptomatic and do not show signs of complications, endoscopic surveillance and subsequent removal of the foreign body can be successfully performed when the mesh is not adhered to the gastric wall, avoiding surgical procedures with high morbidity and mortality.

Complications After Paraesophageal Hernia Repair

Paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) is a challenging operation both technically and because the affected patient population is typically older with more comorbidities. As a result, PEHR is associated with substantial morbidity. Morbidity and mortality following PEHR vary significantly depending on the acuity of the operation and size of the hernia. In addition to a higher risk for general peri- and postoperative complications there are a variety of other foregut specific complications to consider including, acute perioperative, early, and late reherniation, mesh-related complications, perforation, gastroparesis, pulmonary and insufflation-related complications, among others. This review focuses on the complication-specific data on incidence, recognition etiology and management.

New Developments in Anti-Reflux Surgery: Where Are We Now?

Background

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is one of the most common chronic diseases, affecting up to 28% of the western population. Therapeutic management ranges from conservative measures to endoscopic or surgical interventions. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) still is considered as gold standard, but alternative procedures have been developed and evaluated within the past years.

Summary

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA), which aims to be a less disruptive and possibly more standardized laparoscopic procedure than LNF, shows satisfying results regarding short- and long-term follow-up as well as comorbidities. Alternatives, such as the RefluxStop™ procedure or Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF), combined with laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair (cTIF) show promising results for short-term follow-up, nevertheless further studies regarding long-term follow-up are necessary.

Key Message

Although there definitely are upcoming and promising trends in upper GI surgery, LNF still represents today's gold standard and MSA is an equivalent alternative. RefluxStop™ and cTIF show promising results, nevertheless, further studies are necessary.

Does crural repair with biosynthetic mesh improve outcomes of revisional surgery for recurrent hiatal hernia?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic revisional surgery for recurrent hiatal hernia (HH) is technically demanding. Re-recurrences are common and esophageal hiatus mesh reinforcement might improve durability of the repair, thus minimizing the risk of re-herniation.

PURPOSE

Assess safety and effectiveness of simple suture repair (no mesh group) vs. crural augmentation with a biosynthetic absorbable mesh (mesh group) in patients with recurrent HH.

METHODS

Observational retrospective study from September 2012 to December 2022. Only patients undergoing redo surgery for previous failures of hiatal hernia repair were enrolled. Surgical failure was defined as symptomatic recurrent HH with > 2 cm of gastric tissue above the diaphragmatic impression at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and/or swallow study. Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires were used to assess and preoperative and postoperative symptoms and quality of life.

RESULTS

One hundred four patients were included. Overall, 60 patients (57.7%) underwent mesh-reinforced cruroplasty, whereas 44 (42.3%) underwent simple suture cruroplasty. Mesh and no mesh groups had similar baseline demographics, symptoms, prevalence of esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus, and HH size. A composite crural repair was most commonly performed in the mesh group (38.3% vs. 20.5%; p = 0.07). In addition to cruroplasty, most patients (91%) underwent a Toupet fundoplication. The 90-day postoperative complication rate was 8.6%, and there was no mortality. Recurrent HH was diagnosed in 21 patients (20.2%) with a clinical trend toward reduced incidence in the mesh group (16.7% vs. 25%; p = 0.06). Compared to baseline, there was a statistically significant improvement of median GERD-HRQL score (p < 0.01) and all SF-36 items (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic revisional surgery for recurrent HH is safe and effective. Selective use of biosynthetic mesh may protect from early recurrence and has the potential to reduce re-herniation in the long-term.

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.

Pre-existing hiatal mesh increases morbidity during and after revisional antireflux surgery: A retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Revisional antireflux surgery, including hiatus hernia repair, is increasingly common. Mesh-augmented hiatal closure at the time of index operation is controversial but commonly performed. Although a meta-analysis of randomized data has demonstrated no additional benefit of routine mesh placement, it is unclear whether this practice results in harm, particularly at the time of revisional antireflux surgery. We determined whether pre-existing mesh at the hiatus increases morbidity during and after revisional antireflux surgery.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively-maintained databases of all elective revisional antireflux surgery cases in 36 hospitals across Australia took place over 10 years. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients with and without prior hiatal mesh were compared. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to validate primary findings.

RESULTS

A total of 346 revisional cases (35 with pre-existing mesh) were analyzed. The 2 groups had comparable baseline characteristics. In total, 77 (22.2%) patients had 148 intraoperative adverse events. Pre-existing mesh was associated with a higher risk of intraoperative complications (48.6% vs 22.5%, odds ratio 3.25, 95% confidence interval 1.63-6.38, P = .002), secondary to bleeding, and lacerations to pleura, lung, and liver. Overall, 63 (18.2%) patients developed postoperative complications. Pre-existing mesh was associated with increased postoperative morbidity (37.1% vs 16.1%, odds ratio 3.09, 95% confidence interval 1.50-6.43, P = .005), particularly due to bleeding and respiratory complications. Importantly, pre-existing mesh independently predicted the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Prior hiatal mesh significantly increases morbidity during and after revisional antireflux surgery. Given that revisional surgery is increasingly being performed, our findings discourage routine mesh use during primary antireflux surgery.

LAPAROSCOPIC ANTIREFLUX SURGERY: ARE OLD QUESTIONS ANSWERED? MESH HERNIOPLASTY

Hiatal hernias are at high risk of recurrence. Mesh reinforcement after primary approximation of the hiatal crura has been advocated to reduce this risk of recurrence, analogous to mesh repair of abdominal wall hernias. However, the results of such repairs have been mixed, at best. In addition, repairs using some type of mesh have led to significant complications, such as erosion and esophageal stricture. At present, there is no consensus as to (1) whether mesh should be used, (2) indications for use, (3) the type of mesh, and (4) in what configuration. This lack of consensus is likely secondary to the notion that recurrence occurs at the site of crural approximation. We have explored the theory that many, if not most, "recurrences" occur in the anterior and left lateral aspects of the hiatus, normally where the mesh is not placed. We theorized that "recurrence" actually represents progression of the hernia, rather than a true recurrence. This has led to our development of a new mesh configuration to enhance the tensile strength of the hiatus and counteract continued stresses from intra-abdominal pressure.

Tension-free hiatal hernia repair with biological mesh: A real-world experience

Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and esophagoplasty are the standards for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and hiatal hernia (HH) repair. Biologically derived mesh is also associated with reduced recurrence. This study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of a biological mesh in the 4K laparoscopic repair of HH. This retrospective study reviewed patients with a severe GERD complicated with HH from August 2019 to August 2020. All patients underwent the HH repair using a biological mesh under a 4K laparoscope accompanying Nissen fundoplication. Up to 16 months postoperatively, GERD-health-related quality-of-life (GERD-HRQL) scale, radiologic studies on HH recurrence, and symptoms were recorded. The mean surgical time and postoperative hospital stay were 70.9 ± 8.72 min, 4.8 ± 0.76 days, respectively. The postoperative symptom relief rate was 96.5%, and no recurrence exhibited during follow-up. Dysphagia occurred in 10 (9.43%) patients. There were no intraoperative vagus nerve injury or postoperative complications, mesh infection, and reoperation for mesh. The tension-free repair of HH with the biological mesh is an option for clinical use, with effectiveness and few short-term complications being reported.

In Vitro Cytotoxicity, Colonisation by Fibroblasts and Antimicrobial Properties of Surgical Meshes Coated with Bacterial Cellulose

Hernia repairs are the most common abdominal wall elective procedures performed by general surgeons. Hernia-related postoperative infective complications occur with 10% frequency. To counteract the risk of infection emergence, the development of effective, biocompatible and antimicrobial mesh adjuvants is required. Therefore, the aim of our in vitro investigation was to evaluate the suitability of bacterial cellulose (BC) polymer coupled with gentamicin (GM) antibiotic as an absorbent layer of surgical mesh. Our research included the assessment of GM-BC-modified meshes’ cytotoxicity against fibroblasts ATCC CCL-1 and a 60-day duration cell colonisation measurement. The obtained results showed no cytotoxic effect of modified meshes. The quantified fibroblast cells levels resembled a bimodal distribution depending on the time of culturing and the type of mesh applied. The measured GM minimal inhibitory concentration was 0.47 µg/mL. Results obtained in the modified disc-diffusion method showed that GM-BC-modified meshes inhibited bacterial growth more effectively than non-coated meshes. The results of our study indicate that BC-modified hernia meshes, fortified with appropriate antimicrobial, may be applied as effective implants in hernia surgery, preventing risk of infection occurrence and providing a high level of biocompatibility with regard to fibroblast cells.

Medium-term safety and efficacy profile of paraesophageal hernia repair with Phasix-ST® mesh: a single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Hernia recurrence after laparoscopic repair is a perplexing problem. In an effort to reduce anatomical and clinical recurrences, different type of meshes have been used to bolster the esophageal hiatus.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess safety, medium-term efficacy, and quality of life improvement after laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia reinforced with a biosynthetic absorbable mesh (Phasix-ST^®).

METHODS

Observational single-center retrospective single-arm cohort study (November 2015-February 2021). We included all adult patients (> 18 years old) who underwent laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with Phasix-ST^® mesh and Toupet fundoplication.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included. The median postoperative stay was 3.2 days (range 2-9) and the postoperative complication rate was 11.7%. The median follow-up time was 27 months (range 1-53). No mesh-related complications were detected. Hernia recurrence was diagnosed in six patients (8.8%). The recurrence-free probability at 34 months was 0.89 (95% CI 0.807-0.988) while at 60 months was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.97). Hernia recurrences were mostly observed between 21 and 36 months after the operation. None of the patients required surgical revision and all were managed with PPI. Postoperative dysphagia requiring endoscopic balloon dilatation occurred in 2.9% of patients. Compared to baseline, both the GERD-HRQL (15.2 ± 6.2 vs. 3.2 ± 3.1; p = 0.026) and all SF-36 items were significantly improved (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic crura augmentation with Phasix-ST^® mesh combined with a Toupet fundoplication is safe and seems effective in the medium-term follow-up. Phasix-ST^® crural reinforcement resulted in low hernia recurrence rate with a sustained symptoms and quality of life improvement.

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.

Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: To Mesh or not to Mesh. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare outcomes after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR) with mesh or primary repair alone.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

High recurrence rates after LPEHR have been reported. Whether the use of mesh improves outcomes remains elusive.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LPEHR with mesh repair versus suture repair alone. Early (≤6 months) and late (>6 months) recurrence rates were used as primary endpoints to assess efficacy. Intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, and reoperation rates were used as secondary endpoints to assess safety. A meta-analysis was conducted using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the analyzed outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs comparing mesh (n = 383) versus suture only (n = 352) repair were included for analysis. Patients undergoing LPEHR with mesh reinforcement had similar early (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.26-2.07, P = 0.46) and late (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.27-2.08, P = 0.48) recurrence rates as those with primary repair. Similar recurrence rates were also found when stratifying the analysis by the type of mesh utilized (absorbable and nonabsorbable). Intraoperative complications (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.33-3.28, P = 0.92) and reoperation rates (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.29-1.92, P = 0.45) were also similar in both groups. Overall morbidity, however, was higher after mesh repair with nonabsorbable mesh (RR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.24-1.71, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing LPEHR have similar early and late recurrence rates with either mesh reinforcement or suture only repair, regardless of the type of mesh utilized. Overall morbidity, however, seems to be higher in patients repaired with nonabsorbable mesh.

Esophagectomy for Permanent Mesh Migration after Transthoracic Hiatal Hernia Repair

A 76-year-old woman with distant history of right diaphragmatic hernia repair with permanent mesh and subsequent laparotomy for mesh migration re-presents with pneumonia. On initial presentation, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and computed tomography noted a contained esophageal perforation with residual permanent mesh. Although the patient initially deferred esophagectomy, a right lower lobe lung abscess developed necessitating mesh resection and an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. We present the first case of mesh migration and erosion through esophagus and the right lower lobe of the lung. Permanent mesh should not be used during hiatal hernia repairs due to complications such as mesh erosion.

[Mesh Implantation in Anti-Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Surgery - Contra Statement]

In the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and of hiatal hernias, the high rate of recurrence of hiatal hernias is a central problem. Against this background, various, primarily alloplastic, meshes are used to augment suture closure on the esophageal hiatus. Very different results have been reported in the past and the use of meshes in hiatus reconstruction is controversial. In addition to the frequency of recurrences, reports about complications of mesh augmentation are in the foreground. On the basis of several prospective randomised double-blinded comparative studies and meta-analyses (class Ia and Ib evidence), the current data do not show any advantages of mesh-augmented hiatoplasty for the prevention of recurrence of hiatal hernia. At the same time, there exist reports of more long-term postoperative complications, especially dysphagia, after use of meshes for augmentation of hiatus reconstruction. Therefore, routine use of mesh augmentation for hiatus reconstruction is currently not recommended.

What Is the Reality of Hiatal Hernia Management?-A Registry Analysis

Introduction: To date, the guidelines for surgical repair of hiatal hernias do not contain any clear recommendations on the hiatoplasty technique with regard to the use of a mesh or to the type of fundoplication (Nissen vs. Toupet). This present 10-years analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry aims to investigate these questions.

Methods: Data on 17,328 elective hiatal hernia repairs were entered into the Herniamed Registry between 01.01.2010 and 31.12.2019. 96.4% of all repairs were completed by laparoscopic technique. One-year follow-up was available for 11,280 of 13,859 (81.4%) patients operated during the years 2010–2018. The explorative Fisher's exact test was used for statistical calculation of significant differences with an alpha = 5%. Since the annual number of cases in the Herniamed Registry in the years 2010–2012 was still relatively low, to identify significant differences the years 2013 and 2019 were compared.

Results: The use of mesh hiatoplasty for axial and recurrent hiatal hernias remained stable over the years from 2013 to 2019 at 20 and 45%, respectively. In the same period the use of mesh hiatoplasty for paraesophageal hiatal hernia slightly, but significantly, increased from 33.0 to 38.9%. The proportion of Nissen and Toupet fundoplications for axial hiatal hernia repair dropped from 90.2% in 2013 to 74.0% in 2019 in favor of “other techniques” at 20.9%. For the paraesophageal hiatal hernias (types II–IV) the proportion of Nissen and Toupet fundoplications was 68.1% in 2013 and 66.0% in 2019. The paraesophageal hiatal hernia repairs included a proportion of gastropexy procedures of 21.7% in 2013 and 18.7% in 2019. The recurrent hiatal hernia repairs also included a proportion of gastropexies 12.8% in 2013 and 15.1% in 2019, Nissen and Toupet fundoplications of 72.7 and 62.7%, respectively, and “other techniques” of 14.5 and 22.2%, respectively. No changes were seen in the postoperative complication and recurrence rates.

Conclusion: Clear trends are seen in hiatal hernia repair. The use of meshes has only slightly increased in paraesophageal hiatal hernia repairs. The use of alternative techniques has resulted in a reduction in the use of the “classic” Nissen and Toupet fundoplication surgical techniques.