Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term results and complications related to Crurasoft® mesh repair for paraesophageal hiatal hernias

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The application of mesh-reinforced hiatal closure has resulted in a significant reduction in recurrence rates in comparison with primary suture repair. However, the use of meshes has not completely extended in all the cases of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias (LPHH) due to the complications related to them. The aim of this study is to present our long-term results and complications related to Crurasoft® mesh (Bard) for the treatment of LPHH.

Methods

From January 2004 to December 2014, 536 consecutive patients underwent open or laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease or LPHH at Ramón y Cajal University Hospital. Primary simple suture of the crura and additional reinforcement with a Crurasoft® mesh (Bard) was performed in 93 patients (17.35 %). Radiologic hiatal hernia recurrence and mesh-related complications were investigated.

Results

Of the 93 patients undergoing mesh repair, there were 28 male and 65 female with a mean age of 67.27 years (range 22–87 years). Laparoscopic surgery was attended in 88.2 % of the cases, and open surgery in the rest 11.8 %. Mean operative time was 167.05 min (range 90–370 min). Median postoperative stay was 4.79 days (range 1–41 days). Conversion rate was 8.53 % (7 patients). Intraoperative complications were described in 10.75 % (10 patients), but all of them, except in one case, could be managed laparoscopically. Overall postoperative complications rate was 28 %. Early postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients (12 %), respectively, for grades 2 (6 cases), 3b (1 case) and 5 (4 cases) according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Late postoperative complications occurred in 15 patients (16 %), respectively, for grades 1 (7 cases), 2 (2 cases), 3b (5 cases) and 5 (1 case) according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Thirty day-mortality rate was 4.3 %. Mortality rate specific associated with the mesh was 1 %. Reoperation rate was 5.4 %. After a median follow-up of 76.33 months (range 3–130 months), 8 patients (9 %) developed a recurrent hiatal hernia. Mesh was removed in three cases (3.22 %).

Conclusions

In our experience, the recurrence rate in patients with a Crurasoft® (Bard) is acceptable. However, the rate of postoperative complications and mortality is excessive. The use of meshes in the hiatus keeps on being controversial due to the severe complications related to them. It would be advisable to compare our results in the non-mesh group in terms of recurrences and complications, to determine if meshes in the hiatus should be given in these patients due to its high rate of complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oleynikov D, Jolley JM (2015) Paraesophageal Hernia. Surg Clin North Am 95(3):555–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Targarona E, Bendahan G, Balague C et al (2004) Mesh in the hiatus. A controversial issue. Arch Surg 139:1286–1296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gibson SC, Wong SK, Dixon AC et al (2013) Laparoscopic repair of giant hiatus hernia: prosthesis is not required for successful outcome. Surg Endosc 27(2):618–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rathore MA, Andrabi SIH, Bhatti MI et al (2007) A meta-analysis of recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JSLS 11:456–460

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Pfluke JM, Parker M, Bowers SP et al (2012) Use of mesh for hiatal hernia repair: a survey of SAGES members. Surg Endosc 26(7):1843–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Herbella FA, Patti MG, Del Grande JC (2011) Hiatal mesh repair—current status. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 21(2):61–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pérez Lara FJ, Fernández JD, Quecedo TG et al (2014) Mesh extrusion into the esophageal lumen after surgery for a giant hiatal hernia. Am Surg 80(12):E364–E366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. De Moor V, Zalcman M, Delhaye M et al (2012) Complications of mesh repair in hiatal surgery: about 3 cases and review of the literature. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 22(4):e222–e225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stadlhuber RJ, Sherif AE, Mittal SK et al (2009) Mesh complications after prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal closure: a 28-case series. Surg Endosc 23(6):1219–1226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zugel N, Lang RA, Kox M et al (2009) Severe complication of Laparoscopic mesh hiatoplasty for paraesophageal hernia. Surg Endosc 23:2563–2567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Griffith PS, Valenti V, Qurashi K et al (2008) Rejection of goretex mesh used in prosthetic cruroplasty: a case series. Int J Surg. 6(2):106–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jacobs M, Gomez E, Plasencia G et al (2007) Use of surgisis mesh in laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernias. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 17(5):365–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter J et al (2006) Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg 244(4):481–490

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Alicuben ET, Worrell SG, DeMeester SR (2014) Impact of crural relaxing incisions, Collis gastroplasty, and non-cross-linked human dermal mesh crural reinforcement on early hiatal hernia recurrence rates. J Am Coll Surg 219(5):988–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter JG et al (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson JM, Carbonell AM, Carmody BJ et al (2006) Laparoscopic mesh hiatoplasty for paraesophageal hernias and fundoplications. Surg Endosc 20:362–366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Frantzides CT, Richards CG, Carlson MA (2002) A prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch repair vs simple cruroplasty for large hiatal hernia. Arch Surg 137:649–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Kamolz T et al (2005) Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure reduces postoperative intrathoracic wrap migration. Arch Surg 140:40–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Antoniou SA, Antonioi GA, Koch OO et al (2012) Lower recurrence rates after mesh-reinforced versus simple hiatal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(6):498–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Soricelli E, Basso N, Genco A et al (2009) Long-term results of hiatal hernia mesh repair and antireflux laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23(11):2499–2504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Watson DI, Thompson SK, Devitt PG et al (2015) Laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable mesh versus nonabsorbable mesh: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 261(2):282–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Priego P, Ruiz-Tovar J, Pérez de Oteyza J (2012) Long-term results of giant hiatal hernia mesh repair and antireflux laparoscopic surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 22(2):139–141

  23. Priego P, Salvador JL, Ángel V et al (2014) Short-term results for laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias with Gore Bio A® mesh. Int J Surg 12:794–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Frantzides CT, Carlson MA, Loizides S et al (2010) Hiatal hernia repair with mesh: a survey of SAGES members. Surg Endosc 24(5):1017–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Upper&GI, Bariatric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain

    P. Priego, J. Perez de Oteyza, J. Galindo, P. Carda, F. García-Moreno, G. Rodríguez Velasco & E. Lobo

  2. C/Fermín Caballero 26, 1ºA, 16004, Cuenca, Spain

    P. Priego

Authors
  1. P. Priego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Perez de Oteyza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Galindo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Carda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. García-Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Rodríguez Velasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. E. Lobo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Priego.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs Priego, Pérez de Oteyza, Galindo, Carda, García-Moreno, Rodríguez Velasco and Lobo have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Priego, P., Perez de Oteyza, J., Galindo, J. et al. Long-term results and complications related to Crurasoft® mesh repair for paraesophageal hiatal hernias. Hernia 21, 291–298 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1486-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1486-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation