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.
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.
Authors: R J Wiechmann; M K Ferguson; K S Naunheim; P McKesey; S J Hazelrigg; T S Santucci; R S Macherey; R J Landreneau Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Frank A Granderath; Ursula M Schweiger; Thomas Kamolz; Martin Pasiut; Christoph F Haas; Rudolph Pointner Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jacobus W A Burger; Roland W Luijendijk; Wim C J Hop; Jens A Halm; Emiel G G Verdaasdonk; Johannes Jeekel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David M Krpata; Jeffrey A Blatnik; Karem C Harth; Melissa S Phillips; Yuri W Novitsky; Michael J Rosen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Geoffrey Paul Kohn; Raymond Richard Price; Steven R DeMeester; Jörg Zehetner; Oliver J Muensterer; Ziad Awad; Sumeet K Mittal; William S Richardson; Dimitrios Stefanidis; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Stavros A Antoniou; George A Antoniou; Rudolf Pointner; Frank Alexander Granderath Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-05-15 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: James D Luketich; Katie S Nason; Neil A Christie; Arjun Pennathur; Blair A Jobe; Rodney J Landreneau; Matthew J Schuchert Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Eric J Hazebroek; Ada Ng; David H K Yong; Hayley Berry; Steven Leibman; Garett S Smith Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 4.584