» Articles » PMID: 26487237

Long-term Outcomes of Cruroplasty Reinforcement with Composite Versus Biologic Mesh for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Overview
Journal Surg Endosc
Publisher Springer
Date 2015 Oct 22
PMID 26487237
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the issue of improvement of disadvantages of different type meshes.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 101 gastroesophageal reflux disease patients who underwent reinforcement of crura with or without prosthetic mesh. Three types of mesh, 4-ply biologic small intestine submucosa (SIS, Surgisis(®), since November 2010), 6-ply SIS (Biodesign™ Surgisis(®), since March 2011), and composite synthetic mesh (Crurasoft(®), since May 2010), were used. All patients were assigned to simple suture group (n = 35), 4-ply SIS group (n = 13), 6-ply Biodesign™ group (n = 26) or Crurasoft(®) group (n = 27). Postoperative follow-up was performed via clinical visit or phone call contact. Subjective assessment included dysphagia, patients' symptomatic outcome judgment according to Visick and patients' satisfaction. Objective evaluation included hiatal hernia recurrence according to upper endoscopy and barium contrast swallow. Follow-up was completed in 83 patients with a mean duration of 45 months (range 16-149 months).

Results: For the objective outcomes, although anatomic recurrence of hiatal hernia did not significantly differ between groups at 6 months postoperatively, long-term results showed a protective effect of mesh implantation on hernia recurrence (p = 0.047). For the subjective outcomes, the mesh group had a more significant improvement in Visick score (p = 0.020) compared to the simple suture group. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the mesh group (p = 0.014), and subgroup analysis showed a clear trend as follows: Crurasoft(®) ≈ Biodesign(®) > SIS(®). A higher frequency of postoperative dysphagia was presented in the Crurasoft group compared with other two groups at 6 months postoperatively, but the difference was not significant over time (p = 0.227).

Conclusion: Mesh cruroplasty results in satisfactory symptom control with a low recurrence rate. 6-ply biologic mesh is promising with respect to the reduction in anatomic recurrences. Postoperative dysphagia does not occur commonly following mesh cruroplasty with PTFE/ePTFE mesh.

Citing Articles

Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hanna N, Kumar S, Collings A, Pandya Y, Kurtz J, Kooragayala K Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(6):2917-2938.

PMID: 38630179 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10816-9.


Cruroplasty with or without mesh? A systematic literature review with a novel time-organized proportion meta-analysis.

Latorre-Rodriguez A, Rajan A, Mittal S Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(4):1685-1708.

PMID: 38351425 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10683-4.


Decellularization of Small Intestinal Submucosa.

Jelodari S, Sadroddiny E Adv Exp Med Biol. 2021; 1345:71-84.

PMID: 34582015 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-82735-9_7.


Laparoscopic management of large hiatal hernia: mesh method with the use of ProGrip mesh versus standard crural repair.

Ilyashenko V, Grubnyk V, Grubnik V Surg Endosc. 2018; 32(8):3592-3598.

PMID: 29423552 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6087-2.


Routine use of mesh during hiatal closure is safe with no increase in adverse sequelae.

Abu Saleh W, Morris L, Tariq N, Kim M, Chan E, Meisenbach L Surg Endosc. 2017; 32(2):879-888.

PMID: 28917000 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5758-8.


References
1.
Stadlhuber R, Sherif A, Mittal S, Fitzgibbons Jr R, Brunt L, Hunter J . Mesh complications after prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal closure: a 28-case series. Surg Endosc. 2008; 23(6):1219-26. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0205-5. View

2.
Muller-Stich B, Linke G, Borovicka J, Marra F, Warschkow R, Lange J . Laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty as a treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and hiatal hernias-preliminary clinical and functional results of a prospective case series. Am J Surg. 2008; 195(6):749-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.06.022. View

3.
Tatum R, Shalhub S, Oelschlager B, Pellegrini C . Complications of PTFE mesh at the diaphragmatic hiatus. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007; 12(5):953-7. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-007-0316-7. View

4.
Chilintseva N, Brigand C, Meyer C, Rohr S . Laparoscopic prosthetic hiatal reinforcement for large hiatal hernia repair. J Visc Surg. 2012; 149(3):e215-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2012.01.006. View

5.
Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Whitson B . Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. J Surg Res. 2001; 99(2):282-7. DOI: 10.1006/jsre.2001.6176. View