Literature DB >> 26049745

Laparoscopic augmentation of the diaphragmatic hiatus with biologic mesh versus suture repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stavros A Antoniou1, Beat P Müller-Stich, George A Antoniou, Gernot Köhler, Ruzica-Rosalia Luketina, Oliver O Koch, Rudolph Pointner, Frank-Alexander Granderath.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias is associated with high recurrence rates. Erosion and mesh migration are rare but devastating complications of synthetic mesh repair, whereas reoperation is accompanied by significant operative morbidity. The aim of this study was to estimate the comparative risk of hernia recurrence following primary suture or biologic mesh repair.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE database was performed and comparative data of relevant studies were combined using the Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis model. The odds ratio (OR) for hernia recurrence with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated.
RESULTS: Five relevant studies (two randomized controlled trials and three case-control studies) and one follow-up report of a randomized trial, encompassing 295 patients, were identified. Small intestine submucosa and human acellular cadaveric dermis were used as mesh grafts. Short-term recurrence rates were 16.6 and 3.5 % for suture repair and biologic mesh repair, respectively (OR 3.74, 95 % CI 1.55-8.98, p = 0.003). Long-term recurrence based on data provided by one trial only was 51.3 and 42.4 %, respectively (OR 1.43, 95 % CI 0.56-3.63, p = 0.45). Sensitivity analysis of the two randomized trials at short-term follow up demonstrated no significant difference (OR 2.54, 95 % CI 0.92-7.02, p = 0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: Biologic mesh repair of large hiatal hernias may confer short-term benefits in terms of hernia recurrence; however, the limited available information does not allow us to make conclusions about the long-term efficacy of biologic mesh in this setting. Individual biologic mesh grafts require further clinical assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26049745     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-015-1312-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  28 in total

1.  Small intestinal submucosa for laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Paul S Strange
Journal:  Surg Technol Int       Date:  2003

2.  Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation.

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

3.  Long term behavior of biological prostheses used as abdominal wall substitutes.

Authors:  G Pascual; S Sotomayor; P Pérez-López; J Buján; J M Bellón
Journal:  Histol Histopathol       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 4.  Review of outcome after laparoscopic paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair.

Authors:  Sam Mehta; Alex Boddy; Michael Rhodes
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.719

5.  Laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable mesh versus nonabsorbable mesh: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  David I Watson; Sarah K Thompson; Peter G Devitt; Lorelle Smith; Simon D Woods; Ahmad Aly; Susan Gan; Philip A Game; Glyn G Jamieson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Influence of weight and structure on biological behavior of polypropylene mesh prostheses placed at the esophageal hiatus.

Authors:  Jonas Senft; Tobias Gehrig; Felix Lasitschka; Georg R Linke; Maxym Shevchenko; Thomas Bruckner; Hannes G Kenngott; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 1.878

Review 7.  Hiatal hernia repair with the use of biologic meshes: a literature review.

Authors:  Stavros A Antoniou; Rudolph Pointner; Frank A Granderath
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.719

8.  Abdominal wall hernia repair: a comparison of Permacol and Surgisis grafts in a rat hernia model.

Authors:  F S Ayubi; P J Armstrong; M S Mattia; D M Parker
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2008-03-11       Impact factor: 4.739

9.  Reoperative intervention in patients with mesh at the hiatus is associated with high incidence of esophageal resection--a single-center experience.

Authors:  Kalyana Nandipati; Maria Bye; Se Ryung Yamamoto; Pradeep Pallati; Tommy Lee; Sumeet K Mittal
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 10.  Mesh complications after prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal closure: a 28-case series.

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

View more
  10 in total

1.  Routine use of mesh during hiatal closure is safe with no increase in adverse sequelae.

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

2.  Intraesophageal Migration of a Paraesophageal Hernia Mesh: A Case Report.

Authors:  Anass Idrissi; Omar Mouni; Mohamed Bouziane; Abdelaziz Fadil; Khalid Sair
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-04-21

Review 3.  Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients.

Authors:  David J Samson; Mahir Gachabayov; Rifat Latifi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Functional Results after Repair of Large Hiatal Hernia by Use of a Biologic Mesh.

Authors:  Filimon Antonakis; Ferdinand Köckerling; Friedrich Kallinowski
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2016-03-09

5.  What are the differences in the outcome of laparoscopic axial (I) versus paraesophageal (II-IV) hiatal hernia repair?

Authors:  F Köckerling; Y Trommer; K Zarras; D Adolf; B Kraft; D Weyhe; R Fortelny; C Schug-Paß
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Large Hiatal Hernia Repair with Urinary Bladder Matrix Graft Reinforcement and Concomitant Sleeve Gastrectomy.

Authors:  Kent C Sasse; Jonathan Gevorkian; Rachel Lambin; Rami Afshar; Amy Gardner; Aradhana Mehta; John-Henry Lambin; Austin Shinagawa
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

7.  Hiatal Hernia Repair with Novel Biological Graft Reinforcement.

Authors:  Kent C Sasse; David L Warner; Ellen Ackerman; Jared Brandt
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 8.  The Use of Biological Meshes in Diaphragmatic Defects - An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Stavros A Antoniou; Rudolph Pointner; Frank-Alexander Granderath; Ferdinand Köckerling
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2015-10-21

9.  Emergency Laparoscopic Repair of Giant Left Diaphragmatic Hernia following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Description of a Case and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Enrico Erdas; Gian Luigi Canu; Luca Gordini; Paolo Mura; Giulia Laconi; Giuseppe Pisano; Fabio Medas; Pietro Giorgio Calò
Journal:  Case Rep Surg       Date:  2018-09-12

10.  What Is the Reality of Hiatal Hernia Management?-A Registry Analysis.

Authors:  Ferdinand Köckerling; Konstantinos Zarras; Daniela Adolf; Barbara Kraft; Dietmar Jacob; Dirk Weyhe; Christine Schug-Pass
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2020-10-22
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.