Hiatal hernia recurrences after laparoscopic surgery: exploring the optimal technique

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.

The role of gastropexy in paraesophageal hernia repair: A scoping review of current evidence

BACKGROUND

Paraesophageal hernias (PEH), involving abdominal components herniating through the esophageal hiatus, pose serious risks like obstruction and perforation, prompting SAGES to recommend repair upon symptom onset in 2013. Despite surgical advancements, high recurrence rates persist post-PEH repair. Gastropexy, securing the stomach to prevent re-herniation, emerges as a potential solution. However, consensus on its application is lacking. This review aims to map existing research, summarize evidence, and identify gaps guiding future gastropexy research in PEH repair.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, this scoping review conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Eligible studies, including RCTs, observational, and cohort studies, described gastropexy for PEH treatment in adults published in English after 2013. Articles were rigorously screened, with data extracted and organized into tables detailing study characteristics, conditions, and outcomes.

RESULTS

A search yielded 343 studies on gastropexy for PEH, with 17 meeting inclusion criteria. Most were retrospective (47.1 %) or case series (41.2 %). GP, primarily in types III and IV hernias, was mainly performed laparoscopically. Anterior GP was most commonly used (in 64.7 % of included studies), with some studies using additional techniques. Reduced recurrence rates were seen when adjunct procedures such as fundoplication were performed with gastropexy.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the varied application of gastropexy in PEH repair, aiming to reconcile differing surgeon opinions. The data suggests gastropexy can be safely utilised across different techniques, offering a viable option for addressing PEH and reducing hernia recurrence, particularly in high-risk cases.

Surgical strategies for recurrent hiatal hernia: three-point fundoplication fixation

BACKGROUND

The management of a recurrent (symptomatic) hiatal hernia remains controversial. This study aimed to review the outcomes of patients who underwent recurrent repair of hiatal hernias.

METHODS

Thirteen patients who underwent recurrent hiatal hernia repairs at our hospital between 2018 and 2024 were reviewed retrospectively. The postoperative outcomes and complications of these patients were investigated.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were included in this study. The median time of reoperation from the previous hiatal hernia repair was 3 years (IQR, 2.5-5). Patients with a history of only one repair accounted for 76.9%, whereas those with two repairs accounted for 23.1%. All reoperations were completed laparoscopically. No deaths or readmissions during the 30-day postoperative period were recorded at an average of 30.5 ± 20.9 (6-68) months of follow-up. No other complications or symptoms were recorded, and oral medication was discontinued in eleven (84.6%) patients. The average GERD-Q score was 6.7 ± 1.3 postoperatively, whereas it was 10.4 ± 3.0 preoperatively.

CONCLUSION

We present several surgical strategies for addressing the recurrence of hiatal hernias. The key is not only to accurately close the hernia ring but also to fix the fundoplication to reduce the impact on the tissue around the hiatus to reduce the incidence of recurrence. Our three-point fixation technique showed promising effects in preventing recurrence but needs further study.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

ChiCTR2100049995.

Fundoplication at the time of paraesophageal hernia repair does not decrease the rate of hernia recurrence or postoperative reflux

BACKGROUND

Fundoplication at the time of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair is thought to help prevent the development or persistence of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) and might also prevent hernia recurrence. However, the published data is not strong enough to definitively recommend this approach. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness and complications of a fundoplication at the time of paraesophageal hernia repair.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent a paraesophageal hernia repair at a single institution over a 14 year period from 2010 to 2023. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts, those who underwent fundoplication at the time of PEH repair and those who did not. Rates of PEH recurrence, rates of reoperation for a recurrent PEH, postoperative dysphagia rates, and postoperative GERD rates were then compared between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

There were 1,155 patients included in the study. There were 610 (53%) patients who underwent PEH repair with fundoplication and 545 (47%) who did not undergo a fundoplication. 113 (19%) of the patients who underwent fundoplication developed a hernia recurrence compared to 67 (12%) who had a PEH repair alone (p = 0.004). However, each cohort had similar rates of requiring reoperation (p = 0.4). Inclusion of a fundoplication did lead to higher rates of postoperative dysphagia > 30 days postoperatively, 12% vs 7% (p = 0.002), but did not lead to decreased rates of symptomatic GERD postoperatively, 7% with a fundoplication and 7% without (p = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

In this present study, fundoplication at the time of PEH repair did not prevent hernia recurrence, need for reoperation, or decrease postoperative GERD rates but does increase postoperative dysphagia. While there are definite indications for fundoplication at the time of PEH repair (i.e., type 1 hernia), these data do not support the routine use of fundoplication during PEH repair with a normal gastroesophageal flap valve intraoperatively.

Cruroplasty as a standalone treatment for recurrent hiatal hernia repair

PURPOSE

Following laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS), recurrence of hiatal hernia is common. Patients with symptomatic recurrence typically undergo revision of the fundoplication or conversion to magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in addition to cruroplasty. However, patients with an intact fundoplication or MSA may only require repeat cruroplasty to repair their recurrent hiatal hernia. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes following cruroplasty alone compared to full revision (i.e. redo fundoplication or MSA with cruroplasty) for the management of recurrent hiatal hernias.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing surgical revision of a symptomatic recurrent hiatal hernia between February 2009 and October 2022 was performed. Preoperative characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between patients undergoing cruroplasty alone versus full revision.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients were included in the analysis. 93 patients underwent full revision, and 48 patients underwent cruroplasty alone. The mean time between initial and revisional surgery was 8 ± 7.7 years. There was no significant difference in operative time or rates of intra-operative or post-operative complication between groups. Patients undergoing cruroplasty alone had a mean Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health Related Quality Life (GERD-HRQL) Questionnaire score of 9.6 ± 10.2 compared to a mean score of 8.9 ± 11.2 for full revision patients (p = 0.829). Recurrence rates following revision was 10.4% for cruroplasty alone patients and 11.8% in full revision patients (p > 0.999).

CONCLUSION

In patients with intact fundoplication or MSA, cruroplasty alone results in similar post-operative outcomes compared to full revision for recurrent hiatal hernia.

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.

Robotic Repair of a Paraesophageal Hernia After an Open Nissen Fundoplication: Case Presentation and Clinical Discussion

We present a female in her sixties with a recurrent paraesophageal hernia status post open Nissen fundoplication and multiple esophageal dilations who underwent a robotic paraesophageal hernia repair, with extensive lysis of adhesions. The stomach and esophagus were dissected off the crura and the previous wrap was undone. Once the entirety of the stomach and esophagus were freed from their surrounding structures, the hernia sac was able to be excised. The crural defect was closed and gastropexy was performed. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course and was discharged home. This case is presented to provide evidence that robotic repair presents a viable option in the reoperation of patients following an open Nissen fundoplication as well as provide an overview of the types of hiatal hernias and the indications and options for surgical intervention.

Lessons learned from revision procedures: a case series pleading for reinforcement of the anterior hiatus in recurrent hiatal hernia

BACKGROUND

Hiatal Hernia (HH) is a common structural defect of the diaphragm. Laparoscopic repair with suturing of the hiatal pillars followed by fundoplication has become standard practice. In an attempt to lower HH recurrence rates, mesh reinforcement, commonly located at the posterior site of the esophageal hiatus, has been used. However, effectiveness of posterior mesh augmentation is still up to debate. There is a lack of understanding of the mechanism of recurrence requiring further investigation. We investigated the anatomic location of HH recurrences in an attempt to assess why HH recurrence rates remain high despite various attempts with mesh reinforcement.

METHODS

A retrospective case series of prospectively collected data from patients with hiatal hernia repair between 2012 and 2020 was performed. In total, 54 patients with a recurrent hiatal hernia operation were included in the study. Video clips from the revision procedure were analyzed by a surgical registrar and senior surgeon to assess the anatomic location of recurrent HH. For the assessment, the esophageal hiatus was divided into four equal quadrants. Additionally, patient demographics, hiatal hernia characteristics, and operation details were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

54 patients were included. The median time between primary repair and revision procedure was 25 months (IQR 13-95, range 0-250). The left-anterior quadrant was involved in 43 patients (80%), the right-anterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), the left-posterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), and the right-posterior quadrant in 10 patients (19%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, hiatal hernia recurrences occured most commonly at the left-anterior quadrant of the hiatus, however, posterior recurrences were not uncommon. Based on our results, we hypothesize that both posterior and anterior hiatal reinforcement might be a suitable solution to lower the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia. A randomized controlled trial using a circular, bio-absorbable mesh has been initiated to test our hypothesis.