Priscila R Armijo1,2, Crystal Krause3,4, Tailong Xu5, Valerie Shostrom6, Dmitry Oleynikov4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986245 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6245, USA. p.rodriguesarmijo@unmc.edu. 2. Center for Advanced Surgical Technology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986246 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA. p.rodriguesarmijo@unmc.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986245 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6245, USA. 4. Center for Advanced Surgical Technology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986246 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA. 5. College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986246 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA. 6. College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 984355 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-4355, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Use of absorbable mesh in hiatal hernia (HH) repair has been shown to decrease recurrence rates. Our aim was to compare the efficiency of three meshes in relation to the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing HH repair. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was done for adult patients who underwent HH repair with mesh between 2004 and 2016. Demographics, intra-operative, and cost data were collected. Esophageal symptoms and medication use were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Surgical outcomes were evaluated at 6-, 12-months, and long-term follow-up. Three groups were created based on type of mesh: human tissue matrix (HTM), biosynthetic mesh (BIOS), or porcine tissue matrix (PTM). Comparisons were performed between groups using SPSS v.26.0 and PC SAS v9.4, α = 0.05. RESULTS: 292 patients were included (HTM:N = 162, BIOS:N = 83, PTM:N = 47). Majority were male (60.4%), Caucasian (93.2%), median age, and BMI of 59 years [25-90 years] and 29.19 kg/m2 [18.9-58.0 kg/m2], respectively. 69% had a large HH. Median follow-up time was 27 months [1-166 months]. Overall recurrence rate was 39%, being significantly lower in BIOS at long-term (HTM: 31%, BIOS: 17%, PTM: 19%, p = 0.038). All groups had a significant postoperative improvement of esophageal symptoms, all p < 0.001. 65-70% of the cost difference between the groups was incurred by the cost of mesh alone (HTM: $1072, BIOS: $548, PTM: $1295), with the remainder attributable to the surgery itself. CONCLUSION: While outcomes of the three mesh groups were similar in our data, there was a significant difference in mesh cost. Surgeon and hospital preference still play a role in choosing the type of mesh used; however, knowledge of the individual mesh cost will help surgeons make better informed decisions.
PURPOSE: Use of absorbable mesh in hiatal hernia (HH) repair has been shown to decrease recurrence rates. Our aim was to compare the efficiency of three meshes in relation to the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing HH repair. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was done for adult patients who underwent HH repair with mesh between 2004 and 2016. Demographics, intra-operative, and cost data were collected. Esophageal symptoms and medication use were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Surgical outcomes were evaluated at 6-, 12-months, and long-term follow-up. Three groups were created based on type of mesh: human tissue matrix (HTM), biosynthetic mesh (BIOS), or porcine tissue matrix (PTM). Comparisons were performed between groups using SPSS v.26.0 and PC SAS v9.4, α = 0.05. RESULTS: 292 patients were included (HTM:N = 162, BIOS:N = 83, PTM:N = 47). Majority were male (60.4%), Caucasian (93.2%), median age, and BMI of 59 years [25-90 years] and 29.19 kg/m2 [18.9-58.0 kg/m2], respectively. 69% had a large HH. Median follow-up time was 27 months [1-166 months]. Overall recurrence rate was 39%, being significantly lower in BIOS at long-term (HTM: 31%, BIOS: 17%, PTM: 19%, p = 0.038). All groups had a significant postoperative improvement of esophageal symptoms, all p < 0.001. 65-70% of the cost difference between the groups was incurred by the cost of mesh alone (HTM: $1072, BIOS: $548, PTM: $1295), with the remainder attributable to the surgery itself. CONCLUSION: While outcomes of the three mesh groups were similar in our data, there was a significant difference in mesh cost. Surgeon and hospital preference still play a role in choosing the type of mesh used; however, knowledge of the individual mesh cost will help surgeons make better informed decisions.
Authors: Lindsay F Petersen; Shannon L McChesney; Shaun C Daly; Keith W Millikan; Jonathan A Myers; Minh B Luu Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Brant K Oelschlager; Carlos A Pellegrini; John Hunter; Nathaniel Soper; Michael Brunt; Brett Sheppard; Blair Jobe; Nayak Polissar; Lee Mitsumori; James Nelson; L Swanstrom Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jörg Zehetner; Steven R Demeester; Shahin Ayazi; Patrick Kilday; Florian Augustin; Jeffrey A Hagen; John C Lipham; Helen J Sohn; Tom R Demeester Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Michael T Olson; Saurabh Singhal; Roshan Panchanathan; Sreeja Biswas Roy; Paul Kang; Taylor Ipsen; Sumeet K Mittal; Jasmine L Huang; Michael A Smith; Ross M Bremner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 4.584
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
Authors: Damien J Lazar; Desmond H Birkett; David M Brams; Heather A Ford; Christina Williamson; Dmitry Nepomnayshy Journal: JSLS Date: 2017 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Benjamin Clapp; Ali M Kara; Paul J Nguyen-Lee; Hani M Annabi; Luis Alvarado; John D Marr; Omar M Ghanem; Brian Davis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 3.453