Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using sutures versus sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh.

BACKGROUND: Current literature is characterized by a discrepancy between reported symptomatic and radiological recurrent hiatal hernia's following primary repair. Crural augmentation using mesh is suggested to reduce recurrence rates. The aim of this trial is to analyze 1-year outcome of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using sutures versus sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2016, 72 patients with an objectified hiatal hernia were randomized for primary repair using non-absorbable sutures and sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh. Data regarding the incidence of recurrent hiatal hernia, need for endoscopic dilatation or surgical reintervention, postoperative dysphagia and/or reflux symptoms, general health, and use of acid-suppressing medication were analyzed. RESULTS: 72 patients (n = 36 vs. n = 36) were included. One year after primary repair and repair using non-absorbable mesh, there were no differences in the number of recurrent hiatal hernia's demonstrated by barium swallow radiology (n = 4 [11.4%] vs. n = 6 [19.4%], p = 0.370) or upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (n = 5 [14.4%] vs. n = 5 [17.2%], p = 0.746), the number of surgical reinterventions (n = 2 [5.6%] vs. n = 1 [2.8%], p = 1.000), nor in chest pain and heartburn scores, with comparable dysphagia and satisfaction scores. Compared to the preoperative state, both groups demonstrated a comparable and significant reduction in chest pain score and Dakkak dysphagia score. CONCLUSIONS: Use of non-absorbable mesh to reinforce primary hiatal hernia repair results in equal hiatal hernia recurrence and symptomatic outcome compared to repair using sutures alone. During 1-year follow-up, there were no mesh-related complications. Follow-up beyond 1 year needs to demonstrate whether these findings are sustained.

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

BACKGROUND: Hiatus hernia (HH) contributes to the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Mesh-augmentation of surgical repair might be associated with a reduced risk of recurrence and GERD. However, recurrence rates, mesh-associated complications and quality of life (QOL) after mesh versus suture repair are debated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine HH recurrence following mesh-augmentation versus suture repair. Secondary aims were to compare complications, mortality, QOL and GERD symptoms following different repair techniques. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Springer database was performed to identify relevant studies comparing mesh-augmentation versus suture repair of the esophageal hiatus. Data pertinent to the benefit versus risk outcomes for these techniques were extracted and compared by meta-analysis. The odd ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Eleven studies (4 randomized, 9 non-randomized) comparing mesh (n = 719) versus suture (n = 755) repair were identified. Mesh-augmentation was associated with a reduced overall recurrence rate compared to suture repair [2.6 vs. 9.4%, OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.14-0.39), P < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (P = 0.400) between groups. Improvement in QOL measured by SF-36 was greater following biological mesh-augmentation compared to suture repair (MD = 13.68, 95% CI 2.51-24.85, P = 0.020), as well as GERD-HRQL. No differences were seen for the GIQLI scores with permanent mesh (P = 0.530). Dysphagia improvements were better following suture repair (MD = 1.47, 95% CI 0.20-2.74, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Mesh repair of HH conferred some advantages and disadvantages at short-term follow-up. Compared to a suture repair alone, mesh-augmentation might be associated with less short-term recurrences, and biological mesh was associated with improved short-term QOL. However, these advantages were offset by more dysphagia. Long-term outcomes are still needed to determine the place of mesh repair of HH.

Equal patient satisfaction, quality of life and objective recurrence rate after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair with and without mesh.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair has become standard practice for most surgeons performing antireflux surgery. Hiatal hernia repair consists of cruroplasty with sutures only or additional reinforcement using mesh. Use of mesh was initiated to reduce recurrence rates. Recent analyses show that use of mesh may influence radiologic recurrence rates, but it does not seem to prevent symptomatic recurrences and the need for reoperation. This study compares clinical and radiologic outcomes of primary cruroplasty and cruroplasty with non-absorbable mesh after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively followed cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic correction of hiatal hernia type II-IV in two tertiary referral centers was carried out. Radiologic recurrence, symptomatic recurrence, reoperation rate, complications and patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed for all patients. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were analyzed after laparoscopic hiatal hernia correction with an additional fundoplication [127 (67.2%) primary correction, 62 (32.8%) with mesh reinforcement]. After a mean follow-up of 39.3 months, the overall radiologic recurrence rate was 24.3%, which was equal in both groups [25.8% (mesh) vs 23.6% (no mesh), P = 0.331]. Symptomatic recurrence rate was 13.2% (16.1 vs 11.8%, P = 0.495) and reoperation rate 7.4% (9.7 vs 6.3%), which was comparable between the two groups. Complication rates were equal, and no serious mesh-related complications were reported. Health-related quality of life improved after surgery, dysphagia decreased and patient satisfaction was high for both groups without significant differences. CONCLUSION: Radiologic recurrences, symptomatic recurrences and reoperation rates are equal after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair with or without non-absorbable mesh reinforcement, irrespective of hernia size and type. Quality of life, dysphagia and patient satisfaction were comparable. No serious mesh-related complications occurred. The results of this study do not support the routine use of mesh in hiatal hernia repair.

Measuring Outcomes of Laparoscopic Anti-reflux Surgery: Quality of Life Versus Symptom Scores?

INTRODUCTION: Outcome following fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux can be measured using objective tests, symptom scores and quality of life (QoL) measures. Which is best and how these assessments correlate is uncertain. To determine the utility of assessment measures we compared a general QoL measure (SF-36) and a disease-specific measure (GERD-hr-QoL) with symptom and satisfaction scores in individuals following fundoplication. METHODS: 329 individuals underwent fundoplication between 2000 and 2015 in 2 centres in Australia and the Netherlands. Patients were assessed before and 3, 12 and 24 months after surgery using 10-point Likert scales to assess heartburn and satisfaction, the SF-36 questionnaire and the GERD-hr-QoL questionnaire. SF-36 scores were converted into component scores: Physical Component Scale (PCS) score and Mental Component Scale (MCS) score. Correlations between QoL measures and clinical outcomes were determined. RESULTS: Surgery relieved heartburn (7.0 vs. 0.0 median, P < 0.001) and patients were highly satisfied with the outcome (median 9.0). PCS and MCS scores improved after surgery (PCS 40.9 vs. 46.0, P < 0.001; MCS 47.6 vs. 50.3, P = 0.027). GERD-hr-QoL scores also improved after surgery (15.7 vs. 3.7, P < 0.001). Correlations between PCS and MCS scores versus heartburn and satisfaction scores were generally weak or absent. However, correlations between GERD-hr-QoL versus heartburn and satisfaction scores were moderate to strong. CONCLUSION: Despite improvements in scores, the SF-36 correlated poorly with clinical outcome measures, and its use to measure outcome following fundoplication is questioned. However, the GERD-hr-QoL correlated well with the symptom scores, suggesting this disease-specific QoL measure is a better tool for assessing anti-reflux surgery outcome.

Negative Pressure Incision Management System in the Prevention of Groin Wound Infection in Vascular Surgery Patients.

Objectives. Groin wounds following vascular surgery are highly susceptible to healing disturbances, with reported site infections reaching 30%. Negative pressure incision management systems (NPIMS) are believed to positively influence the prevention of surgical wound-healing disturbances (WHD) and surgical site infections (SSI). NPIMS placed directly after closure of the surgical wound is thought to result in fewer infections; we analysed its effect on postoperative wound infections in patients after vascular surgery via the groin. Methods. From May 2012 to March 2013 we included 90 surgical patients; 40 received a NPIMS. All patients with WHDs were labelled and subanalysed for surgical site infection in case of positive microbiological culture. These infections were graded according to Szilagyi. Number of WHDs and SSIs were compared across cohorts. Results. Patient and perioperative characteristics were equal, except for a significantly higher number of emergency procedures among non-NPIMS patients. We found no significant differences in number of WHDs, SSIs, or Szilagyi grades between the two cohorts. Conclusion. The equal number of SSIs across cohorts showed that NPIMS could not reduce the number of surgical site infections after vascular groin surgery.

Quality of Life Following Repair of Large Hiatal Hernia is Improved but not Influenced by Use of Mesh: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic surgery is the treatment of choice for repair of large hiatus hernia, but can be followed by recurrence. Repair with prosthetic mesh has been recommended to prevent recurrence, although complications following mesh repair have generated disagreement about whether or not mesh should be used. The early objective and clinical results of a randomized trial of repair with mesh versus sutures have been reported, and revealed few differences. In the current study, we evaluated quality of life outcomes within this trial at follow-up to 2 years. METHODS: In a multicenter prospective double-blind randomized trial three methods for repair of large hiatus hernia were compared: sutures versus repair with absorbable mesh (Surgisis) versus non-absorbable (Timesh). Quality of life assessment using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire was undertaken at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. SF-36 outcomes (8 individual scales and 2 composite scales) were determined for each group, and compared between groups, and across different follow-up points. RESULTS: 126 patients were enrolled-43 sutures, 41 absorbable mesh and 42 non-absorbable mesh. 115 (91.3%) completed a preoperative questionnaire, and 113 (89.7%) completed the post-operative questionnaire at 3 months, 116 (92.1%) at 6 months, 114 (90.5%) at 12 months, and 91 (72.2%) at 24 months. The SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) improved significantly following surgery, and this improvement was sustained across 24 months follow-up (p < 0.001 for PCS and MCS at each follow-up point). There were no significant differences between the groups for the component scores or the eight SF-36 subscale scores at each follow-up time. 29 individuals had a recurrence at 6 months follow-up, of which 9 were symptomatic. The PCS were higher in patients with recurrence versus without (p < 0.01), and in patients with a symptomatic recurrence versus asymptomatic recurrence versus no recurrence (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: SF-36 measured quality of life improved significantly after repair of large hiatal hernia at up to 2 years follow-up, and there were no differences in outcome for the different repair techniques. The use of mesh versus no mesh in repair of large hiatal hernia did not influence quality of life.