H Reza Zahiri1, Adam S Weltz1, Udai S Sibia1, Neethi Paranji2, Steven D Leydorf3, George T Fantry4, Adrian E Park5,6. 1. Department of Surgery, Anne Arundel Medical Center, 2000 Medical Parkway, Belcher Pavilion, Suite 106, Annapolis, MD, 21401, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Anne Arundel Medical Center, 2000 Medical Parkway, Belcher Pavilion, Suite 106, Annapolis, MD, 21401, USA. apark@aahs.org. 6. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. apark@aahs.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compared patient outcomes after initial versus redo paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair at two high-volume GI surgery centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review analyzed one-year outcomes after initial versus redo elective laparoscopic PEH repair, including wound/non-wound-related complications and quality of life benefits as measured by four validated instruments: reflux symptom index, gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related, laryngopharyngeal reflux, and swallowing scales. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventeen patients (271 initial and 46 redo) underwent laparoscopic PEH repair. Groups differed with respect to age (64.6 vs. 60.2 years, p = 0.027), but were comparable in gender (71.2 vs. 67.4% female, p = 0.596), BMI (29.0 vs. 27.6 kg/m2, p = 0.100), and ASA score (2.3 vs. 2.3 p = 0.666). Redo surgery was more complex with longer mean operative times (112.2 vs. 139.1 min, p < 0.001). Groups did not statistically differ with respect to 30-day wound (0.7 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.363) and non-wound (6.0 vs. 8.7%, p = 0.511)-related complications. After one year of follow-up, QOL analysis revealed that initial versus redo groups significantly benefited from operative intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although redo PEH repairs are more complex, patients enjoy equivalent operative outcomes and quality of life benefits compared to initial surgery lending support to the significance of surgeon experience and high-volume centers in optimizing outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: We compared patient outcomes after initial versus redo paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair at two high-volume GI surgery centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review analyzed one-year outcomes after initial versus redo elective laparoscopic PEH repair, including wound/non-wound-related complications and quality of life benefits as measured by four validated instruments: reflux symptom index, gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related, laryngopharyngeal reflux, and swallowing scales. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventeen patients (271 initial and 46 redo) underwent laparoscopic PEH repair. Groups differed with respect to age (64.6 vs. 60.2 years, p = 0.027), but were comparable in gender (71.2 vs. 67.4% female, p = 0.596), BMI (29.0 vs. 27.6 kg/m2, p = 0.100), and ASA score (2.3 vs. 2.3 p = 0.666). Redo surgery was more complex with longer mean operative times (112.2 vs. 139.1 min, p < 0.001). Groups did not statistically differ with respect to 30-day wound (0.7 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.363) and non-wound (6.0 vs. 8.7%, p = 0.511)-related complications. After one year of follow-up, QOL analysis revealed that initial versus redo groups significantly benefited from operative intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although redo PEH repairs are more complex, patients enjoy equivalent operative outcomes and quality of life benefits compared to initial surgery lending support to the significance of surgeon experience and high-volume centers in optimizing outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Operative outcomes; Paraesophageal hernia repair; Quality of life; Redo
Authors: Omar Awais; James D Luketich; Matthew J Schuchert; Christopher R Morse; Jonathan Wilson; William E Gooding; Rodney J Landreneau; Arjun Pennathur Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: L Grande; V Toledo-Pimentel; C Manterola; G Lacima; E Ros; J C García-Valdecasas; J Fuster; J Visa; C Pera Journal: Br J Surg Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: J J Andujar; P K Papasavas; T Birdas; J Robke; Y Raftopoulos; D J Gagné; P F Caushaj; R J Landreneau; R J Keenan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2004-02-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alex Addo; Dylan Carmichael; Kelley Chan; Andrew Broda; Brian Dessify; Gabriel Mekel; Jon D Gabrielsen; Anthony T Petrick; David M Parker Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: David S Liu; Chek Tog; Hou K Lim; Peter Stiven; Sarah K Thompson; David I Watson; Ahmad Aly Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Akshay R Date; Yan Mei Goh; Yan Li Goh; Ilayaraja Rajendran; Ravindra S Date Journal: J Minim Access Surg Date: 2021 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 1.407