Laparoscopic large hiatus hernia repair with mesh reinforcement versus suture cruroplasty alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 37010656
- DOI: 10.1007/s10029-023-02783-2
Laparoscopic large hiatus hernia repair with mesh reinforcement versus suture cruroplasty alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: To compare the difference in outcomes in laparoscopic large hiatus hernia (LHH) repair using suture-based and mesh-based repair techniques.
Methods: A systematic search of articles was conducted in PubMed, Medline and Embase using the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing recurrences and reoperations in those patients with large hiatal hernia repair (> 30% stomach in the chest, > 5 cm hiatal defect, hiatal surface area > 10 cm2) who had mesh vs no mesh were assessed quantitatively. The impact of mesh on significant intraoperative/postoperative surgical complications was qualitatively assessed.
Results: Pooled data included six randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational studies with 1670 patients (824 with no mesh, 846 with mesh). There was a significant reduction in the total recurrence rate with mesh (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.80, p = 0.007). Mesh use did not cause significant reduction in recurrences > 2 cm (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52-1.67, p = 0.83) or in reoperation rates (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39-1.07, p = 0.09). None of the specific meshes assessed were found to be superior in the reduction of recurrence or reoperation rates. Cases of mesh erosion with eventual foregut resection were noted and were associated with synthetic meshes only.
Conclusion: Mesh reinforcement seemed protective against total recurrence in LHH although this has to be interpreted with caution given the level of heterogeneity introduced by the inclusion of observational studies in the analysis. There was no significant reduction in large recurrences (> 2 cm) or reoperation rate. If the synthetic mesh is to be used patients need to be informed of the risk of mesh erosion.
Keywords: Fundoplication; Hiatus hernia; Mesh; Recurrence; Reoperation.
© 2023. Crown.
References
-
- Dallemagne B et al (1991) Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: preliminary report. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):138–143 - PubMed
-
- Oelschlager BK et al (2006) Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg 244(4):481–490. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000237759.42831.03 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter JG, Brunt ML, Soper NJ, Sheppard BC, Polissar NL, Neradilek MB, Mitsumori LM, Rohrmann CA, Swanstrom LL (2011) Biologic prosthesis to prevent recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: long-term follow-up from a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg 213(4):461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.05.017 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Huddy JR, Markar SR, Ni MZ, Morino M, Targarona EM, Zaninotto G, Hanna GB (2016) Laparoscopic repair of hiatus hernia: does mesh type influence outcome? A meta-analysis and European survey study. Surg Endosc 30(12):5209–5221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4900-3 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Tam V, Winger DG, Nason KS (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of mesh vs suture cruroplasty in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair. Am J Surg 211(1):226–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.07.007 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
