James J Jung1,2, David M Naimark3, Ramy Behman4,3, Teodor P Grantcharov4,3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, 209 Victoria Street, 8th Floor East, Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada. jungj@smh.ca. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. jungj@smh.ca. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, 209 Victoria Street, 8th Floor East, Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on whether asymptomatic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) should be operated. Some argue that surgery is necessary prophylaxis against potentially catastrophic consequences of acute complications in untreated PEH. Others reason that the acute complications are rare and emergent operations have relatively low mortality. In the laparoscopic era, elective operations have become safer and less morbid. However, recent studies report high incidence of recurrent hernia, some of which affect quality of life and require further interventions. In light of these new findings, we investigated whether asymptomatic PEH should receive elective laparoscopic hernia repair (ELHR) or watchful waiting (WW). METHODS: A Markov Monte Carlo microsimulation decision analysis model followed a hypothetical cohort of asymptomatic PEH patients who have predominantly female gender and normally distributed mean age of 62.5 years for the lifetime. Accrued health benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life months (QALM) were compared between two strategies: WW and ELHR. Two-dimensional simulations were performed to account for uncertainties in the model. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test key assumptions. RESULTS: After considering both individual- and parameter-level uncertainties in the two-dimensional simulations, WW was the superior strategy in 82% of the simulations, accumulating mean 5 QALM more than ELHR (168 vs. 163). Our model was robust to deterministic sensitivity analyses and was internally validated, which supported the validity of our results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with asymptomatic PEH are more likely to achieve greater health outcomes if they undergo WW as initial treatment than ELHR.
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on whether asymptomatic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) should be operated. Some argue that surgery is necessary prophylaxis against potentially catastrophic consequences of acute complications in untreated PEH. Others reason that the acute complications are rare and emergent operations have relatively low mortality. In the laparoscopic era, elective operations have become safer and less morbid. However, recent studies report high incidence of recurrent hernia, some of which affect quality of life and require further interventions. In light of these new findings, we investigated whether asymptomatic PEH should receive elective laparoscopic hernia repair (ELHR) or watchful waiting (WW). METHODS: A Markov Monte Carlo microsimulation decision analysis model followed a hypothetical cohort of asymptomatic PEH patients who have predominantly female gender and normally distributed mean age of 62.5 years for the lifetime. Accrued health benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life months (QALM) were compared between two strategies: WW and ELHR. Two-dimensional simulations were performed to account for uncertainties in the model. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test key assumptions. RESULTS: After considering both individual- and parameter-level uncertainties in the two-dimensional simulations, WW was the superior strategy in 82% of the simulations, accumulating mean 5 QALM more than ELHR (168 vs. 163). Our model was robust to deterministic sensitivity analyses and was internally validated, which supported the validity of our results. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with asymptomatic PEH are more likely to achieve greater health outcomes if they undergo WW as initial treatment than ELHR.
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: 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: Sergio Diaz; L Michael Brunt; Mary E Klingensmith; Peggy M Frisella; Nathaniel J Soper Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Rafik K Sorial; Mazzn Ali; Pepa Kaneva; Julio F Fiore; Melina Vassiliou; Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman; Lorenzo E Ferri; Lawrence Lee; Carmen L Mueller Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Brian Shea; William Boyan; Jonathan Decker; Vincent Almagno; Steven Binenbaum; Gurdeep Matharoo; Anthony Squillaro; Frank Borao Journal: JSLS Date: 2019 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Renske A B Oude Nijhuis; Margot van der Hoek; Jeroen M Schuitenmaker; Marlies P Schijven; Werner A Draaisma; Andreas J P M Smout; Albert J Bredenoord Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Sharbel A Elhage; Angela M Kao; Michael Katzen; Jenny M Shao; Tanushree Prasad; Vedra A Augenstein; B Todd Heniford; Paul D Colavita Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.584