Laparoscopic antireflux surgery with polyglactin (vicryl) mesh. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011;21:443-449. [PMID: 22146169 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e31823acc87]

Systematic review of the perioperative classification, diagnosis, description and repair of hiatus hernias in randomized controlled trials

Hiatus hernias (HH) are a common cause of symptoms and complications, with considerable variation in anatomy, function, diagnosis and treatment. We undertook the first systematic review to appraise how HH are diagnosed and classified in the literature, using randomized controlled trials as a sample. A search was performed in July 2021of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and 2832 articles were identified and 64 were included. Median Jadad score was 2. Studies demonstrated considerable variation in diagnosis, classification and minimum surgical steps. The commonest classifications before surgery were axial length and the Type I-IV classification, variably assessed by endoscopy and contrast swallow. Intra-operatively, the commonest classification was type I-IV. A minority used more than one classification, or alternatives such as defect size and Hill classification. Most studies reported minimum steps, but these varied. Only a minority reported criteria for diagnosing recurrence. Using randomized controlled trials to appraise the highest quality evidence in the literature, we found considerable variation and inconsistency in the way HH are diagnosed and classified. This lack of a 'common language' has significant impacts for the generalizability of evidence, study synthesis and design. We propose the development of an internationally accepted classification. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

Hiatal hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh reinforcement: a qualitative systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Reinforcement of crural closure with synthetic resorbable mesh has been proposed to decrease recurrence rates after hiatal hernia repair, but continues to be controversial. This systematic review aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and intermediate-term results of using biosynthetic mesh to augment the hiatus.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed throughout this systematic review. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials tools were used to perform qualitative assessment of all studies included in this review. Recommendations were then summarized for the following pre-defined key items: protocol, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, study design, risk of bias, publication bias, and statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search found 520 articles, 101 of which were duplicates and 355 articles were determined to be unrelated to our study and excluded. The full text of the remaining 64 articles was thoroughly assessed. A total of 18 articles (1846 patients) were ultimately included for this review, describing hiatal hernia repair using three different biosynthetic meshes-BIO-A, Phasix ST, and polyglactin mesh. Mean operative time varied from 127 to 223 min. Mean follow up varied from 12 to 54 months. There were no mesh erosions or explants. One mesh-related complication of stenosis requiring reoperation was reported with BIO-A. Studies showed significant improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores, as well as satisfaction with surgery. Recurrence was reported as radiologic or clinical recurrence. Overall, recurrence rate varied from 0.9 to 25%.

CONCLUSION

The use of biosynthetic mesh is safe and effective for hiatal hernia repair with low complications rates and high symptom resolution. The reported recurrence rates are highly variable due to significant heterogeneity in defining and evaluating recurrences. Further randomized controlled trials with larger samples and long-term follow-up should be performed to better analyze outcomes and recurrence rates.

What works best in hiatus hernia repair, sutures alone, absorbable mesh or non-absorbable mesh? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair (HHR) and fundoplication is a common low risk procedure providing excellent control of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and restoring of normal anatomy at the hiatus. HHR may fail, however, resulting in hiatus hernia (HH) recurrence, and the use of tension-free mesh-augmented hernioplasty has been proposed to reduce recurrence. Previous research on this topic has been heterogeneous, including study methods, mesh type used and technique performed. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were carried out. An electronic systematic research was carried out using 'PUBMED', 'EMBASE', 'Medline (OVID)' and 'Web of Science', of articles identifying HHR with suture cruroplasty, non-absorbable mesh (NAM) and absorbable mesh (AM) reinforcement. Eight RCTs with 766 patients were evaluated. NAM had significantly (P < 0.05) lower early recurrence rates (OR: 0.225, 95% CI 0.0342, 0.871) compared with suture repair alone; however, no differences in late recurrences were evident. For AM, no difference in early (0.508, 95% CI 0.0605, 4.81) or late (1.07. 95% CI 0.116, 11.4) recurrence rates were evident compared with the suture only group. Major complication rates were similar in all groups. NAM reinforcement significantly reduced early HH recurrence when compared with sutured cruroplasty alone; however, late recurrence rates were similar with all techniques. Given the limited data in comparing AM with NAM, this study was unable to conclude which composition was significant. We emphasize caution when interpreting small sample size RCTs, and recommend more research with larger randomized studies.

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.

Narrative review of management controversies for paraesophageal hernia

Objective

To review management controversies in paraesophageal hernia and options for surgical repair.

Background

Paraesophageal hernia is an increasingly common problem. There are controversies over whether and when paraesophageal hernias should be surgically repaired. In addition, if these hernias are to be repaired, the method of repair, need for mesh reinforcement, need for fundoplication, and need for gastropexy are not uniformly accepted.

Methods

Recent literature was reviewed on need for repair, approach (open, laparoscopic or robotic surgery), method of repair (primary suture, use of relaxing incisions, use of mesh reinforcement), materials and configuration of mesh reinforcement, need and type of fundoplication, and need for gastropexy, with emphasis on surgical outcomes.

Conclusions

The extant literature suggests that paraesophageal hernia should be approached in a patient-centered, precision medicine manner. In general, hernia reduction, sac excision and primary suture approximation of the hiatal crura are mandatory. Use of mesh should be based on individual risk factors; if mesh is used, biological meshes appear to have a more favorable safety profile, with the “reverse C” or keyhole configuration allowing for increase in crural tensile strength at it most vulnerable areas. Use and choice of fundoplication or magnetic sphincter augmentation should be based on individual considerations. Finally, gastropexy is generally ineffective and should be used only in extreme circumstances.

Use of absorbable meshes in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair

Paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair is one of the most challenging upper gastrointestinal operations. Its high rate of recurrence is due mostly to the low quality of the crura and size of the hiatal defect. In an attempt to diminish the recurrence rates, some clinical investigators have begun performing mesh-reinforced cruroplasty with nonabsorbable meshes like polypropylene or polytetrafluoroethylene. The main problem with these materials is the occurrence, in some patients, of serious mesh-related morbidities, such as erosions into the stomach and the esophagus, some of which necessitate subsequent esophagectomy or gastrectomy. Absorbable meshes can be synthetic or biological and were introduced in recent years for PEH repair with the intent of diminishing the recurrence rates observed after primary repair alone but, theoretically, without the risks of morbidities presented by the nonabsorbable meshes. The current role of absorbable meshes in PEH repair is still under debate, since there are few data regarding their long-term efficacy, particularly in terms of recurrence rates, morbidity, need for revision, and quality of life. In this opinion review, we analyze all the presently available evidence of reinforced cruroplasty for PEH repair using nonabsorbable meshes (synthetic or biological), focusing particularly on recurrence rates, mesh-related morbidity, and long-term quality of life.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh versus suture repair of hiatus hernia: objective and subjective outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hiatus hernia (HH) contributes to the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Mesh-augmentation of surgical repair might be associated with a reduced risk of recurrence and GERD. However, recurrence rates, mesh-associated complications and quality of life (QOL) after mesh versus suture repair are debated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine HH recurrence following mesh-augmentation versus suture repair. Secondary aims were to compare complications, mortality, QOL and GERD symptoms following different repair techniques.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Springer database was performed to identify relevant studies comparing mesh-augmentation versus suture repair of the esophageal hiatus. Data pertinent to the benefit versus risk outcomes for these techniques were extracted and compared by meta-analysis. The odd ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (4 randomized, 9 non-randomized) comparing mesh (n = 719) versus suture (n = 755) repair were identified. Mesh-augmentation was associated with a reduced overall recurrence rate compared to suture repair [2.6 vs. 9.4%, OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.14-0.39), P < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (P = 0.400) between groups. Improvement in QOL measured by SF-36 was greater following biological mesh-augmentation compared to suture repair (MD = 13.68, 95% CI 2.51-24.85, P = 0.020), as well as GERD-HRQL. No differences were seen for the GIQLI scores with permanent mesh (P = 0.530). Dysphagia improvements were better following suture repair (MD = 1.47, 95% CI 0.20-2.74, P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh repair of HH conferred some advantages and disadvantages at short-term follow-up. Compared to a suture repair alone, mesh-augmentation might be associated with less short-term recurrences, and biological mesh was associated with improved short-term QOL. However, these advantages were offset by more dysphagia. Long-term outcomes are still needed to determine the place of mesh repair of HH.

A collective review of biological versus synthetic mesh-reinforced cruroplasty during laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication

Background:

Laparoscopic cruroplasty and fundoplication have become the gold standard in the treatment of hiatal hernia and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The use of a mesh-reinforcement of the cruroplasty has been proven effective; although, there is a lack of evidence considering which type of mesh is superior. The aim of this study was to compare recurrence rates after mesh reinforced cruroplasty using biological versus synthetic meshes.

Methods:

We performed a systematic review of all clinical trials published between January 2004 and September 2015 describing the application of a mesh in the hiatal hernia repair during Nissen fundoplication for both GERD and hiatal hernia. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate, and secondary outcomes were complication rate, mortality and symptomatic outcome.

Results:

We included 16 studies and extracted data regarding 1089 mesh operated patients of whom 385 received a biological mesh and 704 a synthetic mesh. The mean follow-up was 53.4 months. The recurrence rate in the synthetic mesh group was 6.8% compared to 16.1% in the biological mesh group (P < 0.05). The complication rate was 5.1% and 4.6% (P = 0.694), respectively, and there were 12 mesh-related complications. No mesh-related mortality was reported.

Conclusion:

Mesh reinforcement of hiatal hernia repair seems safe in the short-term follow-up. The available literature suggests no clear advantage of biological over synthetic meshes. Regarding cost-efficiency and short-term results, the use of synthetic nonabsorbable meshes might be advocated.

Laparoscopic fundoplication with double sided posterior gastropexy: a different surgical technique

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication has become the gold standard surgical procedure for management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Nissen fundoplication provides an effective barrier against reflux. The aim of this study was to evaluate early postoperative outcomes of a different surgical technique, laparoscopic fundoplication with double sided posterior gastropexy.

METHODS

Data of 46 patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication with double sided posterior gastropexy between February 2010 and December 2011 were collected. Surgically, after Nissen fundoplication was completed, 2-4 sutures were passed through the uppermost parts of the posterior and anterior wall of the gastric wrap and then passed gently 1 cm above the celiac artery from the denser fibers of uppermost part of the arcuate ligament. Demographic data, preoperative and postoperative assesments of sympthomatic and functional outcomes of patients were recorded. Length of hospital stay, operative time, early postoperative complications and complications at 1 year follow up, early recurrence rate were also recorded.

RESULTS

This technique resulted in good symptomatic and clinical outcomes. Only one patient out of 45 patients was reoperated. The early recurrence rate was 2.2%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with double sided posterior gastropexy may prevent paraesophageal herniation. It is a reasonably feasible and effective method in surgical management of GERD.