Use of absorbable meshes in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair

The Effects of Tissue Healing Factors in Wound Repair Involving Absorbable Meshes: A Narrative Review

Wound healing is a complex and meticulously orchestrated process involving multiple phases and cellular interactions. This narrative review explores the intricate mechanisms behind wound healing, emphasizing the significance of cellular processes and molecular factors. The phases of wound healing are discussed, focusing on the roles of immune cells, growth factors, and extracellular matrix components. Cellular shape alterations driven by cytoskeletal modulation and the influence of the 'Formin' protein family are highlighted for their impact on wound healing processes. This review delves into the use of absorbable meshes in wound repair, discussing their categories and applications in different surgical scenarios. Interleukins (IL-2 and IL-6), CD31, CD34, platelet rich plasma (PRP), and adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs) are discussed in their respective roles in wound healing. The interactions between these factors and their potential synergies with absorbable meshes are explored, shedding light on how these combinations might enhance the healing process. Recent advances and challenges in the field are also presented, including insights into mesh integration, biocompatibility, infection prevention, and postoperative complications. This review underscores the importance of patient-specific factors and surgical techniques in optimizing mesh placement and healing outcomes. As wound healing remains a dynamic field, this narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current understanding and potential avenues for future research and clinical applications.

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.

Predictors of anti-reflux procedure failure in complex esophageal atresia patients

BACKGROUND

Anti-reflux procedures (ARP) in esophageal atresia (EA) patients can be challenging and prone to failure. These challenges become more evident with increasing complexity of EA. We sought to determine predictors of ARP failure in complex EA patients.

METHODS

Single-institution retrospective review of complex EA patients (e.g. long-gap EA, esophageal strictures, hiatal hernia, and reoperative ARP) who underwent an ARP from 2002 to 2019. ARP failure was defined as hiatal hernia recurrence, wrap migration/loosening, or need for reoperation. Predictors of failure were evaluated using univariate and multivariable time-to-event analysis.

RESULTS

121 patients underwent 140 ARP at a median age of 13.5 months (IQR 7, 26.5). Nissen fundoplication (89%) was the most common ARP. Mesh (bovine pericardium) reinforcement was used in 41% of the patients. Median follow-up was 3.2 years (IQR 0.9, 5.8); 44 instances of ARP failure occurred (31%), though only 20 (14%) required reoperation. Median time to failure was 8.7 months (IQR 3.2, 25). Though fewer mesh-reinforced ARP failed (21% with vs 39% without, p = 0.02), on multivariable analysis only partial fundoplication (aHR 2.22 [95% CI 1.01-4.78]) and minimally invasive repair (aHR 2.57 [95% CI 1.12-6.01]) were significant predictors of ARP failure.

CONCLUSION

In our practice of complex EA patients, where ARP fail in nearly one third of cases, a Nissen fundoplication performed via laparotomy provided the lowest risk of ARP failure.

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.

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.

Ten-year follow up of cosmetic outcome, overall survival, and disease-free survival in endoscope-assisted partial mastectomy with filling of dead space using absorbable mesh for stage ≤ IIA breast cancer: comparison with conventional conservative method

BACKGROUND

Data on long-term cosmetic outcome, overall survival, and disease-free survival of endoscope-assisted partial mastectomy (EAPM) for breast cancer are scarce. Thus, we examined these outcomes after a 10-year follow-up period, and compared with conventional conservative method (CCM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data on 257 patients with stage ≤ IIA breast cancer who underwent CCM (n = 125) or EAPM (n = 132) were analyzed. Cosmetic outcome at 2, 5, and 10 years was evaluated by 5 criteria (breast retraction assessment, nipple deviation, atrophy, skin change, scar). For overall mortality, breast cancer-specific mortality, and recurrence, the risk by operation method was tested by Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

EAPM performed significantly better than CCM in terms of cosmetic outcomes for location B at 2, 5, and 10 year-follow ups. As for cosmetic outcomes by individual criteria, EAPM had significantly higher proportions of satisfactory results for scar across all follow-up periods, and atrophy at 2-year and 10-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in terms of overall mortality, breast cancer-specific mortality, and recurrence between EAPM and CCM. The rates of patients who experienced local recurrence were similar between CCM and EAPM.

CONCLUSION

EAPM is better than CCM in terms of long-term cosmetic outcome, especially for location B. As a surgical treatment for breast cancer, EAPM is comparable to CCM in terms of mortality and recurrence.

Prosthetic Reinforcement in Hiatal Hernia Repair, Does Mesh Material Matter? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Hiatal hernia repair (HHR) is a complex surgical procedure and its management is not standardized. Several meta-analyses have compared cruroplasty with hiatus reinforcement with mesh, and crura augmentation appears to have better outcomes. However, heterogeneity in type of mesh and placement techniques has differed significantly. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were carried out. An electronic systematic research was carried out throughout Pubmed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, of articles analyzing HHR with cruroplasty, nonabsorbable mesh (NAM), and absorbable mesh (AM) reinforcement. Results: Seventeen articles based on 1857 patients were enrolled in this article. The point estimation showed that when compared against the control group (NAM), the HH recurrence risk in AM and cruroplasty group was higher (relative ratio [RR] 2.3; CrI 0.8-6.3, RR 3.6; CrI 2.0-8.3, respectively). Postoperative complication rates were alike in all groups. The prevalence of mesh erosion after HHR is low. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis showed that prosthetic reinforcement significantly reduced HH recurrence when compared with cruroplasty alone. However, there is not enough evidence to compare different mesh compositions.

A Collective Review of Gore Bio-A Absorbable Synthetic Mesh in Cruroplasty Reinforcement

Background: Laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia (HH) is associated with a considerable failure rate. Compared to suture repair alone, mesh-reinforced cruroplasty may be associated with fewer short-term recurrences, yet its use remains controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the current literature assessing the use of Bio-A absorbable synthetic mesh in the reinforcement of primary crural closure after laparoscopic HH repair. Methods: A systematic review of primary literature in the MEDLINE and PubMed databases was conducted. We searched for investigations reporting patient outcomes in laparoscopic HH repair with onlay Gore Bio-A tissue reinforcement (W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.) published between January 2008 and December 2019. The primary outcome was anatomical recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were complication rate, symptomatic outcomes, and mortality. Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria. There were two prospective and six retrospective cohort studies. In the included studies, laparoscopic HH repair was performed with Bio-A absorbable synthetic mesh in 734 patients. The anatomical recurrence data were extracted across all studies, and an objective recurrence was identified in 21/280 (7.5%) patients. There was only 1 (0.17%) mesh-related complication in the included studies. Conclusions: The use of Bio-A absorbable synthetic mesh in the repair of HHs may be promising, as it offers low rates of anatomical recurrence and mesh-related complications, but more data are still necessary to validate these findings. This collective review of literature is a basis for future randomized controlled trials to identify the most effective and safe mesh in the long term.