Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Crura augmentation with Bio-A® mesh for laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia: single-institution experience with 100 consecutive patients

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

Abstract

Background

The potential utility of both non-absorbable and absorbable meshes to reinforce the esophageal hiatus and prevent recurrent hernia has been investigated in observational studies and a few randomized clinical trials. Use of absorbable mesh has been associated with lesser side-effects, but the long-term safety and effectiveness are still debated. This rather scanty clinical evidence is due to heterogeneity and bias regarding the type of mesh and operation used, the modalities of follow-up, and the reporting of objective results.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to assess safety, quality of life, and recurrence-free probability after laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia reinforced with a synthetic absorbable mesh.

Methods

Observational, retrospective, single-center cohort study. All patients with hiatal hernia who underwent laparoscopic crura repair using a biosynthetic mesh (Gore Bio A® tissue reinforcement, Flagstaff, AZ) were included. Pre- and post-operative symptoms were assessed with the GERD-HRQL questionnaire. Objective follow-up consisted of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and barium swallow study.

Results

From September 2011 to March 2016, a total of 100 patients underwent hiatal hernia repair using a Bio-A® mesh. All surgical procedures were completed laparoscopically. Postoperative morbidity rate was 10%. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and the median follow-up was 30 (IQR = 22) months. No mesh-related complications occurred. The incidence of recurrent hernia ≥2 cm was 9%, and eight of the nine patients had a preoperative type III hernia. The median GERD-HRQL score was significantly reduced after operation (p < 0.001). The recurrence-free probability at 1 and 5 years was, respectively, 0.99 (CI 0.97–1.00) and 0.84 (CI 0.74–0.97), and no reoperation was required. No association was found between age, BMI, hernia size, previously failed surgical repairs and hernia recurrence.

Conclusions

The use of a synthetic absorbable mesh to reinforce the esophageal hiatus is safe and appears to be effective and durable over a medium-term follow-up.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stylopoulos N, Rattner DW (2005) The history of hiatal hernia surgery: from Bowditch to laparoscopy. Ann Surg 241:185–193

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaplan JA, Schecter S, Lin MYC, Rogers S, Carter JT (2015) Morbidity and mortality associated with elective or emergency paraesophageal hernia repair. JAMA Surg 150(11):1094–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Draaisma WA, Gooszen HG, Tournoij E, Broeders IA (2005) Controversies in paraesophageal hernia repair: a review of literature. Surg Endosc 19(10):1300–1308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hashemi M, Peters JH, DeMeester TR et al (2000) Laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia: objective follow-up reveals high recurrence rate. J Am Coll Surg 190(5):553–560

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. Kahrilas PJ, Kim HC, Pandolfino JE (2008) Approaches to the diagnosis and grading of hiatal hernia. Best Practice Res Clin Gastroenterol 22:601–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Asti E, Bonavina L, Lombardi M, Bandera F, Secchi F, Guazzi M (2015) Reversibility of cardiopulmonary impairment after laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernia. Int J Surg Case Rep 14:33–35

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Velanovich V (1998) Comparison of generic (SF-36) vs disease-specific quality of life (GERD-HRQL) scales for gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg 2(2):141–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. R Development Core Team (2015) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0

  12. Asti E, Lovece A, Bonavina L, et al (2016) Laparoscopic management of large hiatus hernia: 5-year cohort study and comparison of mesh-augmented versus standard crura repair. Surg Endosc 30:5404–5409

  13. Wang Z, Bright T, Irvine T, Thompson SK, Devitt PG, Watson DI (2015) Outcome for asymptomatic recurrence following laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia. J Gastrointest Surg 19:1385–1390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  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. Lidor AO, Steele KE, Stem M, Fleming RM, Schweitzer MA, Marohn MR (2015) Long-term quality of life and risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JAMA Surg 150(5):424–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zaninotto G, Portale G, Costantini M et al (2007) Objective follow-up after laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia. Assessment of safety and durability. World J Surg 31:2177–2183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tam V, Winger DG, Nason KS (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of mesh versus suture cruroplasty in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair. Am J Surg 21(1):226–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Watson DI, Thompson SK, Devitt PG et al (2015) Laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures vs absorbable vs non-absorbable mesh—a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 261:282–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Koetje JH, Irvine T, Thompson S et al (2015) Quality of life following repair of large hiatal hernias is improved but not influenced by use of mesh: results from a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 39(6):1465–1473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Muller-Stich BP, Kenngott HG, Gondan M et al (2015) Use of mesh in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a meta-analysis and risk-benefit analysis. PLOS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139547

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milano Medical School, Piazza Malan 1, San Donato Milanese, 20097, Milano, Italy

    E. Asti, A. Sironi, G. Bonitta, A. Lovece, P. Milito & L. Bonavina

Authors
  1. E. Asti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Sironi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Bonitta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Lovece
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Milito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Bonavina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Bonavina.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures involved in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

EA, AS, GB, AL, PM, and LB declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asti, E., Sironi, A., Bonitta, G. et al. Crura augmentation with Bio-A® mesh for laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia: single-institution experience with 100 consecutive patients. Hernia 21, 623–628 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1603-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1603-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation