BACKGROUND: Mesh-assisted hiatal closure during foregut surgery is increasing. Our aim was to evaluate the complications that follow revisional foregut surgery. Specifically, we compared surgical indications and perioperative outcomes between patients with and without prior hiatal mesh (PHM). METHODS: We conducted an institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary-care referral center. Over 37 months, 91 patients underwent revisional foregut surgery. We excluded 13 cases including operations performed primarily for obesity or achalasia. Of the remaining 78 patients, 10 had PHM and 68 were nonmesh patients (NM). RESULTS: The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and rates and types of anatomic failure. Compared with NM patients, PHM patients had increased estimated blood loss (410 vs. 127 ml, p < 0.01) and operative time (4.07 vs. 2.89 h, p < 0.01). The groups had no difference in perioperative blood transfusion or length of stay. Complete fundoplication was more commonly created in NM patients (2/10 vs. 42/68, p = 0.03). Three of the 10 PHM patients and 3 of the 68 NM patients required major resection. Therefore, PHM patients had 6.8-fold increased risk of major resection compared with NM patients [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.585, 29.17; p = 0.05]. The NM patients with multiple prior hiatal operations had 4.6-fold increased risk of major resection compared with those with one prior operation (95% CI = 2.919, 7.384; p = 0.03). In PHM patients, however, the number of prior hiatal operations was not associated with major resection. CONCLUSIONS: PHM is associated with increased risk of major resection at revision. The pattern of failure was not different in patients with hiatal mesh, suggesting that hiatal mesh does not eliminate the potential for revision. When performing hiatal herniorrhaphy, the increased risk of recurrence without mesh must be weighed against the potential risk for subsequent major resection when using mesh.
BACKGROUND: Mesh-assisted hiatal closure during foregut surgery is increasing. Our aim was to evaluate the complications that follow revisional foregut surgery. Specifically, we compared surgical indications and perioperative outcomes between patients with and without prior hiatal mesh (PHM). METHODS: We conducted an institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary-care referral center. Over 37 months, 91 patients underwent revisional foregut surgery. We excluded 13 cases including operations performed primarily for obesity or achalasia. Of the remaining 78 patients, 10 had PHM and 68 were nonmesh patients (NM). RESULTS: The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and rates and types of anatomic failure. Compared with NMpatients, PHM patients had increased estimated blood loss (410 vs. 127 ml, p < 0.01) and operative time (4.07 vs. 2.89 h, p < 0.01). The groups had no difference in perioperative blood transfusion or length of stay. Complete fundoplication was more commonly created in NMpatients (2/10 vs. 42/68, p = 0.03). Three of the 10 PHM patients and 3 of the 68 NMpatients required major resection. Therefore, PHM patients had 6.8-fold increased risk of major resection compared with NMpatients [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.585, 29.17; p = 0.05]. The NMpatients with multiple prior hiatal operations had 4.6-fold increased risk of major resection compared with those with one prior operation (95% CI = 2.919, 7.384; p = 0.03). In PHM patients, however, the number of prior hiatal operations was not associated with major resection. CONCLUSIONS: PHM is associated with increased risk of major resection at revision. The pattern of failure was not different in patients with hiatal mesh, suggesting that hiatal mesh does not eliminate the potential for revision. When performing hiatal herniorrhaphy, the increased risk of recurrence without mesh must be weighed against the potential risk for subsequent major resection when using mesh.
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: Blair A Jobe; Ralph W Aye; Clifford W Deveney; John S Domreis; Lucius D Hill Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2002 Mar-Apr 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: Rudolf J Stadlhuber; Amr El Sherif; Sumeet K Mittal; Robert J Fitzgibbons; L Michael Brunt; John G Hunter; Tom R Demeester; Lee L Swanstrom; C Daniel Smith; Charles J Filipi Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-12-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Johannes Miholic; Joumanah Hafez; Johannes Lenglinger; Fritz Wrba; Christiane Wischin; Katrin Schütz; Marcus Hudec Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Stavros A Antoniou; Beat P Müller-Stich; George A Antoniou; Gernot Köhler; Ruzica-Rosalia Luketina; Oliver O Koch; Rudolph Pointner; Frank-Alexander Granderath Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2015-06-07 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Karl Hermann Fuchs; Benjamin Babic; Wolfram Breithaupt; Bernard Dallemagne; Abe Fingerhut; Edgar Furnee; Frank Granderath; Peter Horvath; Peter Kardos; Rudolph Pointner; Edoardo Savarino; Maud Van Herwaarden-Lindeboom; Giovanni Zaninotto Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Eelco B Wassenaar; Fernando Mier; Huseyin Sinan; Rebecca P Petersen; A Valeria Martin; Carlos A Pellegrini; Brant K Oelschlager Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 4.584