Cruroplasty with or Without Mesh? A Systematic Literature Review with a Novel Time-organized Proportion Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Surg Endosc

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gastroenterology
General Surgery
Radiology

Date 2024 Feb 14

PMID 38351425

Authors

Andres R Latorre-Rodriguez

Ajay Rajan

Sumeet K Mittal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Improved outcomes with the use of non-absorbable mesh (NAM) for inguinal hernia repairs led to its rapid adoption for hiatal hernia (HH) repairs; however, feared complications occurred, and the trend shifted toward using absorbable mesh (AM). We aimed to analyze the literature assessing objective HH recurrence rates after primary laparoscopic cruroplasty with or without the use of different mesh types.

Methods: A systematic literature review with both pairwise and time-organized proportion meta-analyses of articles published between January 1993 and September 2022 was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Taylor & Francis databases to identify relevant studies comparing groups undergoing cruroplasty with suture repair (SR) alone, AM, NAM, or partially absorbable mesh (PAM). Studies documenting an objective follow-up ≥ 6 months were included. The primary outcome was the HH recurrence rate confirmed by barium esophagram or upper GI endoscopy.

Results: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 6 randomized clinical trials, 25 retrospectives studies, and 3 prospective cohort studies. A total of 2170 subjects underwent laparoscopic HH repair and completed an objective follow-up ≥ 6 months after surgery; the objective recurrence rate was 20.8% (99/477) at a mean follow-up of 25.8 ± 16.4 months for the SR group, 20.6% (244/1187) at 28.1 ± 13.8 months for the AM group, 13.7% (65/475) at 30.8 ± 15.3 months for the NAM group, and 0% (0/31) at 32.5 ± 13.5 months for the PAM group. However, the pairwise meta-analysis revealed that overall mesh use was not superior to SR in preventing long-term HH recurrence.

Conclusion: The use of AM does not appear to reduce HH recurrence compared to SR alone. Although the data favors NAM to decrease objective HH recurrence in the mid-term, the long-term (≥ 48 months) recurrence rate was similar with or without any type of mesh.

References

Stylopoulos N, Rattner D . The history of hiatal hernia surgery: from Bowditch to laparoscopy. Ann Surg. 2004; 241(1):185-93. PMC: 1356862. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000149430.83220.7f. View

Hashemi M, Peters J, DeMeester T, Huprich J, Quek M, Hagen J . Laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia: objective followup reveals high recurrence rate. J Am Coll Surg. 2000; 190(5):553-60; discussion 560-1. DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(00)00260-x. View

Vorst A, Kaoutzanis C, Carbonell A, Franz M . Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015; 7(11):293-305. PMC: 4663383. DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v7.i11.293. View

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

Granderath F, Schweiger U, Kamolz T, Uwe Asche K, Pointner R . Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure reduces postoperative intrathoracic wrap herniation: preliminary results of a prospective randomized functional and clinical study. Arch Surg. 2005; 140(1):40-8. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.140.1.40. View

Oelschlager B, Pellegrini C, Hunter J, Brunt M, Soper N, Sheppard B . Biologic prosthesis to prevent recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: long-term follow-up from a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2011; 213(4):461-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.05.017. View

Kohn G, Price R, DeMeester S, Zehetner J, Muensterer O, Awad Z . Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc. 2013; 27(12):4409-28. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3173-3. View

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

Oelschlager B, Pellegrini C, Hunter J, Soper N, Brunt M, Sheppard B . Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2006; 244(4):481-90. PMC: 1856552. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000237759.42831.03. View

10.

Pfluke J, Parker M, Bowers S, Asbun H, Smith C . Use of mesh for hiatal hernia repair: a survey of SAGES members. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26(7):1843-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2150-6. View

11.

Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6. PMC: 2335261. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. View

12.

Abdelmoaty W, Dunst C, Filicori F, Zihni A, Davila-Bradley D, Reavis K . Combination of Surgical Technique and Bioresorbable Mesh Reinforcement of the Crural Repair Leads to Low Early Hernia Recurrence Rates with Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019; 24(7):1477-1481. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04358-y. View

13.

Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Sozzi A, Lombardo F, Lanzaro A, Panizzo V . Medium-term safety and efficacy profile of paraesophageal hernia repair with Phasix-ST mesh: a single-institution experience. Hernia. 2021; 26(1):279-286. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-021-02528-z. View

14.

Alicuben E, Worrell S, DeMeester S . Resorbable biosynthetic mesh for crural reinforcement during hiatal hernia repair. Am Surg. 2014; 80(10):1030-3. View

15.

Armijo P, Krause C, Xu T, Shostrom V, Oleynikov D . Surgical and clinical outcomes comparison of mesh usage in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2020; 35(6):2724-2730. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07703-4. View

16.

Asti E, Lovece A, Bonavina L, Milito P, Sironi A, Bonitta G . Laparoscopic management of large hiatus hernia: five-year cohort study and comparison of mesh-augmented versus standard crura repair. Surg Endosc. 2016; 30(12):5404-5409. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-4897-7. View

17.

Brandalise A, Aranha N, Brandalise N . The polypropylene mesh in the laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias: technical aspects. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2013; 25(4):224-8. DOI: 10.1590/s0102-67202012000400003. View

18.

Gebhart A, Vu S, Armstrong C, Smith B, Nguyen N . Initial outcomes of laparoscopic paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair with mesh. Am Surg. 2013; 79(10):1017-21. View

19.

Gordon A, Gillespie C, Son J, Polhill T, Leibman S, Smith G . Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic large hiatus hernia repair with nonabsorbable mesh. Dis Esophagus. 2018; 31(5). DOI: 10.1093/dote/dox156. View

20.

Hazebroek E, Koak Y, Berry H, Leibman S, Smith G . Critical evaluation of a novel DualMesh repair for large hiatal hernias. Surg Endosc. 2008; 23(1):193-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-9772-8. View