Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Jan 1;275(1):67-72.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004913.

Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: To Mesh or not to Mesh. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cristian A Angeramo  1 , Francisco Schlottmann
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: To Mesh or not to Mesh. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cristian A Angeramo et al. Ann Surg. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare outcomes after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR) with mesh or primary repair alone.

Summary of background data: High recurrence rates after LPEHR have been reported. Whether the use of mesh improves outcomes remains elusive.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LPEHR with mesh repair versus suture repair alone. Early (≤6 months) and late (>6 months) recurrence rates were used as primary endpoints to assess efficacy. Intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, and reoperation rates were used as secondary endpoints to assess safety. A meta-analysis was conducted using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the analyzed outcomes.

Results: Seven RCTs comparing mesh (n = 383) versus suture only (n = 352) repair were included for analysis. Patients undergoing LPEHR with mesh reinforcement had similar early (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.26-2.07, P = 0.46) and late (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.27-2.08, P = 0.48) recurrence rates as those with primary repair. Similar recurrence rates were also found when stratifying the analysis by the type of mesh utilized (absorbable and nonabsorbable). Intraoperative complications (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.33-3.28, P = 0.92) and reoperation rates (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.29-1.92, P = 0.45) were also similar in both groups. Overall morbidity, however, was higher after mesh repair with nonabsorbable mesh (RR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.24-1.71, P < 0.01).

Conclusions: Patients undergoing LPEHR have similar early and late recurrence rates with either mesh reinforcement or suture only repair, regardless of the type of mesh utilized. Overall morbidity, however, seems to be higher in patients repaired with nonabsorbable mesh.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Comment in

References

    1. Oleynikov D, Jolley JM. Paraesophageal hernia. Surg Clin North Am 2015; 95:555–565.
    1. Schlottmann F, Strassle PD, Farrell TM, et al. Minimally invasive surgery should be the standard of care for paraesophageal hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 2017; 21:778–784.
    1. Schlottmann F, Nurczyk K, Patti MG. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: how i do it? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2020; 30:639–641.
    1. Hashemi M, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, et al. Laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia: objective followup reveals high recurrence rate. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 190:553–561.
    1. Mattar SG, Bowers SP, Galloway KD, et al. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. Surg Endosc 2002; 16:745–749.