INTRODUCTION: Paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair has a high radiologic recurrence rate, even with the use of biologic mesh as a prosthetic buttress to reinforce the primary crural repair. This review was done to evaluate outcomes after PEH repair with mesh. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was done of all patients who underwent PEH repair with mesh at our institution between December 2004 and March 2013. Patients were reviewed for evidence of recurrence on upper gastrointestinal studies (UGI). Time-specific, mesh-specific, and size-specific recurrence was analyzed as well as pre- and postoperative symptom scores. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients underwent PEH repair with mesh. Mean follow-up was 25 months (range 0-101). In all cases, an absorbable mesh was used (159 Alloderm, 35 BioA, 15 Strattice). One hundred and fifty-six (75 %) were 5 cm or larger. Of the patients, 166 (79 %) had UGIs available to review for radiologic recurrence. Total recurrence was 21 % (n = 35). No mesh erosions were seen. Recurrence rates increased over time from 16 % (n = 23) at 1 year up to 39 % after 5-year follow-up (n = 11). Recurrence rates were higher for large hernias (23 vs. 16 %). The median size of the recurrence was 4 cm (range 2-7 cm). Overall, patients showed significant improvement in their symptom scores. At long-term follow-up, heartburn had 70.6 % reduction (p < 0.05) and regurgitation had 76.5 % reduction (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative symptom scores between patients with or without radiologic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, PEH repair with mesh was safe and effective at controlling symptoms over the long term. Radiologic recurrence rate increased over time and was highest in patients with hernias >5 cm. Therefore, in our experience, PEH repair with mesh is a safe therapy and though radiologic recurrence does increase with time, symptom resolution is maintained.
INTRODUCTION:Paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair has a high radiologic recurrence rate, even with the use of biologic mesh as a prosthetic buttress to reinforce the primary crural repair. This review was done to evaluate outcomes after PEH repair with mesh. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was done of all patients who underwent PEH repair with mesh at our institution between December 2004 and March 2013. Patients were reviewed for evidence of recurrence on upper gastrointestinal studies (UGI). Time-specific, mesh-specific, and size-specific recurrence was analyzed as well as pre- and postoperative symptom scores. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients underwent PEH repair with mesh. Mean follow-up was 25 months (range 0-101). In all cases, an absorbable mesh was used (159 Alloderm, 35 BioA, 15 Strattice). One hundred and fifty-six (75 %) were 5 cm or larger. Of the patients, 166 (79 %) had UGIs available to review for radiologic recurrence. Total recurrence was 21 % (n = 35). No mesh erosions were seen. Recurrence rates increased over time from 16 % (n = 23) at 1 year up to 39 % after 5-year follow-up (n = 11). Recurrence rates were higher for large hernias (23 vs. 16 %). The median size of the recurrence was 4 cm (range 2-7 cm). Overall, patients showed significant improvement in their symptom scores. At long-term follow-up, heartburn had 70.6 % reduction (p < 0.05) and regurgitation had 76.5 % reduction (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative symptom scores between patients with or without radiologic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, PEH repair with mesh was safe and effective at controlling symptoms over the long term. Radiologic recurrence rate increased over time and was highest in patients with hernias >5 cm. Therefore, in our experience, PEH repair with mesh is a safe therapy and though radiologic recurrence does increase with time, symptom resolution is maintained.
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: 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: M G Patti; M Arcerito; A Tamburini; U Diener; C V Feo; B Safadi; P Fisichella; L W Way Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2000 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.452
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: John R Stringham; Jennifer V Phillips; Timothy L McMurry; Drew L Lambert; David R Jones; James M Isbell; Christine L Lau; Benjamin D Kozower Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Walid K Abu Saleh; Lee M Morris; Nabil Tariq; Min P Kim; Edward Y Chan; Leonora M Meisenbach; Brian J Dunkin; Vadim Sherman; Wade Rosenberg; Barbara L Bass; Edward A Graviss; Duc T Nguyen; Patrick Reardon; Puja G Khaitan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Benjamin Clapp; Ali M Kara; Paul J Nguyen-Lee; Hani M Annabi; Luis Alvarado; John D Marr; Omar M Ghanem; Brian Davis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: A Aiolfi; M Cavalli; A Sozzi; F Lombardo; A Lanzaro; V Panizzo; G Bonitta; P Mendogni; P G Bruni; G Campanelli; D Bona Journal: Hernia Date: 2021-10-30 Impact factor: 2.920