PROsthetic MEsh Reinforcement in elective minimally invasive paraesophageal hernia repair (PROMER): an international survey

Abstract

The optimal treatment for paraesophageal hiatus hernia (PEH) is controversial. While crural buttressing with mesh shows promises in reducing recurrences, the decision to use mesh during minimally invasive PEH repair is largely subjective. Due to these uncertainties, we conducted a survey to examine current clinical practices among surgeons and to assess which are the most important determinants in the decision-making process for mesh placement. Thirty-five multiple-choice Google Form-based survey on work-up, surgical techniques, and issues are considered in the decision-making process for mesh augmentation during minimally invasive PEH repair. Responses were graded on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Consensus was defined as > 70% of participants agreed (agree or strongly agree) on a specific statement. Overall, 292 surgeons (86% from Europe) participated in the survey. The median age of participants was 42 years (range 29-69). The median number of PEH procedures was 25/year/center (range 5-400), with 67% of participants coming from high-volume centers (> 20 procedures/year). Consensus on use of mesh was reached for intraoperative findings of large (> 50% of intrathoracic stomach) PEH (74.3%), crural gap with > 4 cm distance between right and left crus (77.1%), and/or crural atrophy with < 0.5 cm thickness of one or both pillars (73%), and for redo surgery (71.9%). Further, consensus was reached in defining recurrence as a combination of refractory symptoms and anatomical/radiological evidence of > 2 cm hernia. This survey shows that large PEH, wide crural transverse diameter, fragile crura, and redo surgery are the most influential issues driving the decision for mesh-reinforced cruroplasty.

Keywords: Mesh; Paraesophageal hernia; Posterior cruroplasty; Recurrence; Survey.