Evolution From the U-shaped to Keyhole-shaped Mesh Configuration in the Repair of Paraesophageal and Recurrent Hiatal Hernia.

BACKGROUND: Paraesophageal hernia (PEH) and recurrent hiatal hernia (RHH) are prone to recurrences. One adjunct used to reduce recurrences is mesh reinforcement. The optimal configuration is yet to be determined. We present our evolution from the U-shaped to the keyhole pattern. METHODS: All patients undergoing PEH/RHH repair with mesh between 2013 and 2019 were reviewed for demographic information, perioperative/intraoperative details, postoperative complications, and recurrences. RESULTS: Of patients undergoing PEH/RHH repair between 2013 and 2019, 138 were repaired using mesh. Of these, 88 were repaired using the U-shaped configuration and 50 using the keyhole configuration. The U-shaped configuration was used for PEH in 72% and RHH in 28%, while the keyhole configuration was used for PEH in 66% and RHH in 34%. Thirty patients suffered postoperative complications, although there was no difference between the groups. Overall, 28 patients in the U-shaped configuration group (31.8%) had a recurrence of their hiatal hernia identified, compared with 7 patients (14.6%) in the keyhole group (P=0.039). The median time to last follow-up was 21 months (range: 1 to 85) in the U-shaped group and 8 months (range: 1 to 23) in the keyhole group. There was no difference in median time to recurrence, postoperative dysphagia, dilations, or strictures. CONCLUSIONS: The keyhole pattern mesh was not associated with a higher complication rate compared with the U-shape pattern. Although this study was not a direct comparison between the configurations, it does suggest that the keyhole pattern may lead to fewer recurrences.

Minor psychiatric disorders and objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms may be unreliable to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients with minor psychiatric disorders (MPD). This study aims to evaluate the influence of MPD in the diagnosis of GERD. METHODS: We prospectively studied 245 patients (based on a sample size calculation) with suspected GERD. All patients underwent manometry and pH monitoring and MPD evaluation based on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Based on the results of the pH monitoring, patients were classified as GERD + (n = 136, 55% of the total, mean age 46 years, 47% females) or GERD - (n = 109, 45% of the total, mean age 43 years, 60% females). The mean HADS score for GERD + and GERD - for anxiety was 7.8 and 8.5, respectively (p = 0.8) and for depression was 5.4 and 6.1, respectively (p = 0.1). DeMeester score (DS) did not correlate with total HADS score (p = 0.08) or depression domain (p = 0.9) but there was a negative correlation between DS and anxiety level (p < 0.001). A significant threshold accuracy value for HADS to diagnose GERD was not found on receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the patients evaluated for GERD did not have the disease on objective evaluation. GERD + and GERD - patients had similar levels of MPD. However, the amount of reflux correlated negatively with the severity of anxiety. Symptoms and HADS cannot accurately diagnose or exclude GERD. pH monitoring should be more liberally used especially in patients with high levels of anxiety.

Symptomatic, Radiological, and Quality of Life Outcome of Paraesophageal Hernia Repair With Urinary Bladder Extracellular Surgical Matrix: Comparison With Primary Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Paraesophageal hernia repairs are prone to recurrence and mesh reinforcement is common. Both biologic and prosthetic meshes have been used. We report a comparison of a new type of biologically derived graft, Gentrix Surgical Urinary Bladder Matrix (UBM). METHODS: The medical records of 65 patients who underwent paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) were reviewed. Primary data points included demographics, first-time or recurrent hernia, operative approach, graft or primary repair, operative time, and postoperative complications. Patients then underwent upper gastrointestinal series, completed the GERD-HRQL symptom severity questionnaire, and the SF-36 generic quality of life instrument. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients underwent graft-reinforced repair, 33 underwent primary repair. More patients in the UBM group were being treated for recurrent PEH. Demographic data and postoperative complications were similar. There was no difference in recurrence rates, size of recurrence, postoperative symptomatic or quality of life improvement. Patients who suffered recurrence in the primary repair group had more severe symptoms and a higher rate of dissatisfaction. Of the 3 patients with recurrences after Gentrix placement, reoperation demonstrated anterior failure where no reinforcement had occurred because of the posteriorly placed U-shaped graft. CONCLUSIONS: The use of UBM was not associated with an increased complications despite use in more difficult patients. Although there appeared to be no difference in recurrence rate or size, it was associated with less severe symptomatic recurrences. The U-shape configuration is prone to recurrence at the site of the repair not covered by the graft, suggesting that a keyhole configuration may be superior.