OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia is a complex operation requiring significant laparoscopic expertise. Our objective was to compare our current approach and outcomes for laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia with our previous experience. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing nonemergency laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia, stratified by early versus current era (January 1997-June 2003 and July 2003-June 2008), was performed. We evaluated clinical outcomes, barium esophagogram, and quality of life. RESULTS: Laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia was performed in 662 patients (median age 70 years, range 19-92 years) with a median percentage of herniated stomach of 70% (range 30%-100%). With time, use of Collis gastroplasty decreased (86% to 53%), as did crural mesh reinforcement (17% to 12%). Current era patients were 50% more likely to have a Charlson comorbidity index score greater than 3. Thirty-day mortality was 1.7% (11/662). Mortality and complication rates were stable with time, despite increasing comorbid disease in current era. Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life scores were available for 489 patients (30-month median follow-up), with good to excellent results in 90% (438/489). Radiographic recurrence (15.7%) was not associated with symptom recurrence. Reoperation occurred in 3.2% (21/662). CONCLUSIONS: With time, we have obtained significant minimally invasive experience and refined our approach to laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia. Perioperative morbidity and mortality remain low, despite increased comorbid disease in the current era. Laparoscopic repair provided excellent patient satisfaction and symptom improvement, even with small radiographic recurrences. Reoperation rates were comparable to the best open series. 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia is a complex operation requiring significant laparoscopic expertise. Our objective was to compare our current approach and outcomes for laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia with our previous experience. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing nonemergency laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia, stratified by early versus current era (January 1997-June 2003 and July 2003-June 2008), was performed. We evaluated clinical outcomes, barium esophagogram, and quality of life. RESULTS: Laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia was performed in 662 patients (median age 70 years, range 19-92 years) with a median percentage of herniated stomach of 70% (range 30%-100%). With time, use of Collis gastroplasty decreased (86% to 53%), as did crural mesh reinforcement (17% to 12%). Current era patients were 50% more likely to have a Charlson comorbidity index score greater than 3. Thirty-day mortality was 1.7% (11/662). Mortality and complication rates were stable with time, despite increasing comorbid disease in current era. Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life scores were available for 489 patients (30-month median follow-up), with good to excellent results in 90% (438/489). Radiographic recurrence (15.7%) was not associated with symptom recurrence. Reoperation occurred in 3.2% (21/662). CONCLUSIONS: With time, we have obtained significant minimally invasive experience and refined our approach to laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia. Perioperative morbidity and mortality remain low, despite increased comorbid disease in the current era. Laparoscopic repair provided excellent patient satisfaction and symptom improvement, even with small radiographic recurrences. Reoperation rates were comparable to the best open series. 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: J M Johnson; A M Carbonell; B J Carmody; M K Jamal; J W Maher; J M Kellum; E J DeMaria Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Bryan A Whitson; Chuong D Hoang; Adam K Boettcher; Peter S Dahlberg; Rafael S Andrade; Michael A Maddaus Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Brant K Oelschlager; Carlos A Pellegrini; John Hunter; Nathaniel Soper; Michael Brunt; Brett Sheppard; Blair Jobe; Nayak Polissar; Lee Mitsumori; James Nelson; L Swanstrom Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P R Schauer; S Ikramuddin; R H McLaughlin; T O Graham; A Slivka; K K Lee; W H Schraut; J D Luketich Journal: Am J Surg Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: James D Luketich; Arjun Pennathur; Omar Awais; Ryan M Levy; Samuel Keeley; Manisha Shende; Neil A Christie; Benny Weksler; Rodney J Landreneau; Ghulam Abbas; Matthew J Schuchert; Katie S Nason Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Anne O Lidor; David C Chang; Richard L Feinberg; Kimberley E Steele; Michael A Schweitzer; Marianne M Franco Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Michael Parker; Steven P Bowers; Jillian M Bray; Adam S Harris; Erol V Belli; Jason M Pfluke; Susanne Preissler; Horacio J Asbun; C Daniel Smith Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: P A Le Page; R Furtado; M Hayward; S Law; A Tan; S J Vivian; H Van der Wall; G L Falk Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 1.891
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: Albert W Tsang; Manish M Tiwari; Jason F Reynoso; Chris U Okwuosa; Dmitry Oleynikov Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alexander C Mertens; Rob C Tolboom; Hana Zavrtanik; Werner A Draaisma; Ivo A M J Broeders Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.584