Literature DB >> 28917000

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

Walid K Abu Saleh1, Lee M Morris2, Nabil Tariq2, Min P Kim2,3, Edward Y Chan2,3, Leonora M Meisenbach2,3, Brian J Dunkin2, Vadim Sherman2, Wade Rosenberg2, Barbara L Bass2, Edward A Graviss4, Duc T Nguyen4, Patrick Reardon2, Puja G Khaitan5,6,7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Primary laparoscopic hiatal repair with fundoplication is associated with a high recurrence rate. We wanted to evaluate the potential risks posed by routine use of onlay-mesh during hiatal closure, when compared to primary repair.
METHODS: Utilizing single-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent primary laparoscopic hiatal repair from January 2005 through December 2014. Retrospective chart review was performed to determine perioperative morbidity and mortality. Long-term results were assessed by sending out a questionnaire. Results were tabulated and patients were divided into 2 groups: fundoplication with hiatal closure + absorbable or non-absorbable mesh and fundoplication with hiatal closure alone.
RESULTS: A total of 505 patients underwent primary laparoscopic fundoplication. Mesh reinforcement was used in 270 patients (53.5%). There was no significant difference in the 30-day perioperative outcomes between the 2 groups. No clinically apparent erosions were noted and no mesh required removal. Standard questionnaire was sent to 475 patients; 174 (36.6%) patients responded with a median follow-up of 4.29 years. Once again, no difference was noted between the 2 groups in terms of dysphagia, heartburn, long-term antacid use, or patient satisfaction. Of these, 15 patients (16.9%, 15/89) in the 'Mesh' cohort had symptomatic recurrence as compared to 19 patients (22.4%, 19/85) in the 'No Mesh' cohort (p = 0.362). A reoperation was necessary in 6 patients (6.7%) in the 'Mesh' cohort as compared to 3 patients (3.5%) in the 'No Mesh' cohort (p = 0.543).
CONCLUSIONS: Onlay-mesh use in laparoscopic hiatal repair with fundoplication is safe and has similar short and long-term results as primary repair.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hiatal hernia; Surgery, complications; Surgery/incisions/exposure/techniques

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28917000     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5758-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  37 in total

1.  Bayesian Model Selection and Model Averaging.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.223

2.  Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia.

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

Review 3.  Laparoscopic augmentation of the diaphragmatic hiatus with biologic mesh versus suture repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

4.  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

5.  A prospective, randomized trial of laparoscopic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch repair vs simple cruroplasty for large hiatal hernia.

Authors:  Constantine T Frantzides; Atul K Madan; Mark A Carlson; George P Stavropoulos
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2002-06

Review 6.  Laparoscopic repair of hiatus hernia: Does mesh type influence outcome? A meta-analysis and European survey study.

Authors:  Jeremy R Huddy; Sheraz R Markar; Melody Z Ni; Mario Morino; Edoardo M Targarona; Giovanni Zaninotto; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Long-term results of hiatal hernia mesh repair and antireflux laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  E Soricelli; N Basso; A Genco; M Cipriano
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh versus suture repair of hiatus hernia: objective and subjective outcomes.

Authors:  Chao Zhang; Diangang Liu; Fei Li; David I Watson; Xiang Gao; Jan H Koetje; Tao Luo; Chao Yan; Xing Du; Zhonggao Wang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair in 221 Patients: Outcomes and Experience.

Authors:  Craig G Chang; Lisa Thackeray
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  1 in total

1.  Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernia Repair With Urinary Bladder Matrix Graft.

Authors:  Raelina S Howell; Melissa Fazzari; Patrizio Petrone; Alexander Barkan; Keneth Hall; María José Servide; María Fernanda Anduaga; Collin E M Brathwaite
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.