B Dallemagne1,2, G Quero3, A Lapergola3, L Guerriero3, C Fiorillo3, S Perretta4,3. 1. IRCAD, 1 Place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France. bernard.dallemagne@ircad.fr. 2. Institute of Image Guided Surgery/IHU Strasbourg, 1 Place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France. bernard.dallemagne@ircad.fr. 3. Institute of Image Guided Surgery/IHU Strasbourg, 1 Place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France. 4. IRCAD, 1 Place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Giant paraesophageal hernias (GPEH) are relatively uncommon and account for less than 5% of all primary hiatal hernias. Giant Secondary GPEH can be observed after surgery involving hiatal orifice opening, such as esophagectomy, antireflux surgery, and hiatal hernia repair. Surgical treatment is challenging, and there are still residual controversies regarding the laparoscopic approach, even though a reduced morbidity and mortality, as well as a shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated. METHODS: A Pubmed electronic search of the literature including articles published between 1992 and 2016 was conducted using the following key words: hiatal hernia, paraesophageal hernias, mesh, laparoscopy, intrathoracic stomach, gastric volvulus, diaphragmatic hernia. RESULTS: Given the risks of non-operative management, GPEH surgical repair is indicated in symptomatic patients. Technical steps for primary hernia repair include hernia reduction and sac excision, correct repositioning of the gastroesophageal junction, crural repair, and fundoplication. For secondary hernias, the surgical technique varies according to hernia type and components and according to the approach used during the first surgery. There is an ongoing debate regarding the best and safest method to close the hiatal orifice. The laparoscopic approach has demonstrated a lower postoperative morbidity and mortality, and a shorter hospital stay as compared to the open approach. A high recurrence rate has been reported for primary GPEH repair. However, recent studies suggest that recurrence does not reduce symptomatic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic treatment of primary and secondary GPEH is safe and feasible in elective and emergency settings, especially in high-volume centers. The procedure is still challenging. The main steps are well defined. However, there is still room for improvement to lower the recurrence rate.
PURPOSE: Giant paraesophageal hernias (GPEH) are relatively uncommon and account for less than 5% of all primary hiatal hernias. Giant Secondary GPEH can be observed after surgery involving hiatal orifice opening, such as esophagectomy, antireflux surgery, and hiatal hernia repair. Surgical treatment is challenging, and there are still residual controversies regarding the laparoscopic approach, even though a reduced morbidity and mortality, as well as a shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated. METHODS: A Pubmed electronic search of the literature including articles published between 1992 and 2016 was conducted using the following key words: hiatal hernia, paraesophageal hernias, mesh, laparoscopy, intrathoracic stomach, gastric volvulus, diaphragmatic hernia. RESULTS: Given the risks of non-operative management, GPEH surgical repair is indicated in symptomatic patients. Technical steps for primary hernia repair include hernia reduction and sac excision, correct repositioning of the gastroesophageal junction, crural repair, and fundoplication. For secondary hernias, the surgical technique varies according to hernia type and components and according to the approach used during the first surgery. There is an ongoing debate regarding the best and safest method to close the hiatal orifice. The laparoscopic approach has demonstrated a lower postoperative morbidity and mortality, and a shorter hospital stay as compared to the open approach. A high recurrence rate has been reported for primary GPEH repair. However, recent studies suggest that recurrence does not reduce symptomatic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic treatment of primary and secondary GPEH is safe and feasible in elective and emergency settings, especially in high-volume centers. The procedure is still challenging. The main steps are well defined. However, there is still room for improvement to lower the recurrence rate.
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
Authors: James D Luketich; Katie S Nason; Neil A Christie; Arjun Pennathur; Blair A Jobe; Rodney J Landreneau; Matthew J Schuchert Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Tobias Gehrig; A Mehrabi; L Fischer; H Kenngott; U Hinz; C N Gutt; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Himanshu J Patel; Bethany B Tan; John Yee; Mark B Orringer; Mark D Iannettoni Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.209
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: Hylke J F Brenkman; Kevin Parry; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Henriikka Hietaniemi; Ilkka Ilonen; Tommi Järvinen; Juha Kauppi; Saana Andersson; Harri Sintonen; Jari Räsänen Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Francisco Javier Perez Lara; Rogelio Zubizarreta Jimenez; Francisco Javier Moya Donoso; Jose Manuel Hernández Gonzalez; Tatiana Prieto-Puga Arjona; Arturo Del Rey Moreno; Maria Pitarch Martinez Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-12-27