» Articles » PMID: 16437267

Laparoscopic Mesh Hiatoplasty for Paraesophageal Hernias and Fundoplications: a Critical Analysis of the Available Literature

Overview
Journal Surg Endosc
Publisher Springer
Date 2006 Jan 27
PMID 16437267
Citations 56
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Little grade A medical evidence exists to support the use of prosthetic material for hiatal closure. Therefore, the authors compiled and analyzed all the available literature to determine whether the use of prosthetic mesh in hiatoplasty for routine laparoscopic fundoplications (LF) or for the repair of large (>5 cm) paraesophageal hernias (PEH) would decrease recurrence.

Methods: A literature search was performed using an inclusive list of relevant search terms via Medline/PubMed to identify papers (n = 19) describing the use of prosthetic material to repair the crura of patients undergoing laparoscopic PEH reduction, LF, or both.

Results: Case series (n = 5), retrospective reviews (n = 6), and prospective randomized (n = 4) and nonrandomized (n = 4) trials were identified. Laparoscopic procedures (n = 1,368) were performed for PEH, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal hernia, or a combination of the three. Group A (n = 729) had primary suture repair of the crura, and group B (n = 639) had repair with either interposition of mesh to close the hiatus or onlay of prosthetic material after hiatal or crural closure. The use of mesh was associated with fewer recurrences than primary suture repair in both the LF and PEH groups. The mean follow-up period did not differ between the groups (20.7 months for group A vs. 19.2 months for group B). None of the papers cited any instance of prosthetic erosion into the gastrointestinal tract.

Conclusions: The current data tend to support the use of prosthetic materials for hiatal repair in both routine LF and the repair of large PEHs. Longer and more stringent follow-up evaluation is necessary to delineate better the safety profile of mesh hiatoplasty. Future randomized trials are needed to confirm that mesh repair is superior to simple crural closure.

Citing Articles

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

Geerts J, de Haas J, Nieuwenhuijs V Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(5):2398-2404.

PMID: 38565689 PMC: 11078792. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10703-3.


The value of "diaphragmatic relaxing incision" for the durability of the crural repair in patients with paraesophageal hernia: a double blind randomized clinical trial.

Tsoposidis A, Thorell A, Axelsson H, Reuterwall Hansson M, Lundell L, Wallenius V Front Surg. 2023; 10:1265370.

PMID: 38026477 PMC: 10667682. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1265370.


Laparoscopic Posterior Cruroplasty and Anterior Gastropexy for Type IV Hiatal Hernia Repair in an Elderly Patient: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Almutairi T, Alsannaa F, Altamran A, Alnefaie F Cureus. 2023; 15(10):e46698.

PMID: 38021668 PMC: 10630158. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46698.


Large paraesophageal hernia in elderly patients: Two case reports of laparoscopic posterior cruroplasty and anterior gastropexy.

El Hajj Moussa W, Rizk S, Assaker N, Makhoul E, Chelala E Int J Surg Case Rep. 2019; 65:189-192.

PMID: 31726255 PMC: 6854275. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.10.047.


Assessment of short-term outcome with TiO mesh in laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias.

Khaled I, Priego P, Faisal M, Cuadrado M, Garcia-Moreno F, Ballestero A BMC Surg. 2019; 19(1):156.

PMID: 31660930 PMC: 6816156. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-019-0607-4.


References
1.
Wiechmann R, Ferguson M, Naunheim K, McKesey P, Hazelrigg S, Santucci T . Laparoscopic management of giant paraesophageal herniation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71(4):1080-6; discussion 1086-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(00)01229-7. View

2.
Burger J, Luijendijk R, Hop W, Halm J, Verdaasdonk E, Jeekel J . Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(4):578-83. PMC: 1356459. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7. View

3.
Jakaite D, Gourley G, PELLETT J . Erosions of the angelchik prosthesis in pediatric-sized developmentally disabled patients. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1991; 13(2):186-91. DOI: 10.1097/00005176-199108000-00012. View

4.
Frantzides C, Madan A, Carlson M, Stavropoulos G . A prospective, randomized trial of laparoscopic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch repair vs simple cruroplasty for large hiatal hernia. Arch Surg. 2002; 137(6):649-52. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.137.6.649. View

5.
Subramanyam K, Robbins H . Erosion of Marlex band and silastic ring into the stomach after gastroplasty: endoscopic recognition and management. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989; 84(10):1319-21. View