Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 864–871 | Cite as

Approach to asymptomatic paraesophageal hernia: watchful waiting or elective laparoscopic hernia repair?

  • James J. Jung
  • David M. Naimark
  • Ramy Behman
  • Teodor P. Grantcharov
Article

Abstract

Background

There is no consensus on whether asymptomatic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) should be operated. Some argue that surgery is necessary prophylaxis against potentially catastrophic consequences of acute complications in untreated PEH. Others reason that the acute complications are rare and emergent operations have relatively low mortality. In the laparoscopic era, elective operations have become safer and less morbid. However, recent studies report high incidence of recurrent hernia, some of which affect quality of life and require further interventions. In light of these new findings, we investigated whether asymptomatic PEH should receive elective laparoscopic hernia repair (ELHR) or watchful waiting (WW).

Methods

A Markov Monte Carlo microsimulation decision analysis model followed a hypothetical cohort of asymptomatic PEH patients who have predominantly female gender and normally distributed mean age of 62.5 years for the lifetime. Accrued health benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life months (QALM) were compared between two strategies: WW and ELHR. Two-dimensional simulations were performed to account for uncertainties in the model. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test key assumptions.

Results

After considering both individual- and parameter-level uncertainties in the two-dimensional simulations, WW was the superior strategy in 82% of the simulations, accumulating mean 5 QALM more than ELHR (168 vs. 163). Our model was robust to deterministic sensitivity analyses and was internally validated, which supported the validity of our results.

Conclusions

Patients with asymptomatic PEH are more likely to achieve greater health outcomes if they undergo WW as initial treatment than ELHR.

Keywords

Hiatal hernia Paraesophageal hernia Laparoscopic surgery Decision analysis Markov model 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dr. Grantcharov received grants from Ethicon Canada, Medtronic Canada, Olympus Canada, Takeda Canada, and Baxter Canada and owns intellectual properties from Surgical Safety Technologies Inc. Drs. Jung, Naimark, and Behman have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2017_5755_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 KB)
464_2017_5755_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 2144 KB)
464_2017_5755_MOESM3_ESM.tiff (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 2144 KB)
464_2017_5755_MOESM4_ESM.docx (39 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 40 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Lebenthal A, Waterford SD, Fisichella PM (2015) Treatment and controversies in paraesophageal hernia repair. Front Surg 2:13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mungo B, Molena D, Stem M, Feinberg RL, Lidor AO (2014) Thirty-day outcomes of paraesophageal hernia repair using the NSQIP database: should laparoscopy be the standard of care? J Am Coll Surg 219:229–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kohn GP, Price RR, DeMeester SR, Zehetner J, Muensterer OJ, Awad Z, Mittal SK, Richardson WS, Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD, Committee SG (2013) Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc 27:4409–4428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sihvo EI, Salo JA, Rasanen JV, Rantanen TK (2009) Fatal complications of adult paraesophageal hernia: a population-based study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137:419–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ozdemir IA, Burke WA, Ikins PM (1973) Paraesophageal hernia. A life-threatening disease. Ann Thorac Surg 16:547–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Skinner DB, Belsey RH (1967) Surgical management of esophageal reflux and hiatus hernia. Long-term results with 1,030 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc= Surg 53:33–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hill LD (1973) Incarcerated paraesophageal hernia. A surgical emergency. Am J Surg 126:286–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allen MS, Trastek VF, Deschamps C, Pairolero PC (1993) Intrathoracic stomach. Presentation and results of operation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 105:253–258 (discussion 258–259)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hallissey MT, Ratliff DA, Temple JG (1992) Paraoesophageal hiatus hernia: surgery for all ages. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 74:23–25PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pitcher DE, Curet MJ, Martin DT, Vogt DM, Mason J, Zucker KA (1995) Successful laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. Arch Surg 130:590–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gantert WA, Patti MG, Arcerito M, Feo C, Stewart L, DePinto M, Bhoyrul S, Rangel S, Tyrrell D, Fujino Y, Mulvihill SJ, Way LW (1998) Laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernias. J Am Coll Surg 186:428–432 (discussion 432–423)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carlson MA, Condon RE, Ludwig KA, Schulte WJ (1998) Management of intrathoracic stomach with polypropylene mesh prosthesis reinforced transabdominal hiatus hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 187:227–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stylopoulos N, Gazelle GS, Rattner DW (2002) Paraesophageal hernias: operation or observation? Ann Surg 236:492–500 (discussion 500–491)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jassim H, Seligman JT, Frelich M, Goldblatt M, Kastenmeier A, Wallace J, Zhao HS, Szabo A, Gould JC (2014) A population-based analysis of emergent versus elective paraesophageal hernia repair using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc 28:3473–3478CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Augustin T, Schneider E, Alaedeen D, Kroh M, Aminian A, Reznick D, Walsh M, Brethauer S (2015) Emergent surgery does not independently predict 30-day mortality after paraesophageal hernia repair: results from the ACS NSQIP Database. J Gastrointest Surg 19:2097–2104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 213:461–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter J, Soper N, Brunt M, Sheppard B, Jobe B, Polissar N, Mitsumori L, Nelson J, Swanstrom L (2006) Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg 244:481–490PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hashemi M, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, Huprich JE, Quek M, Hagen JA, Crookes PF, Theisen J, DeMeester SR, Sillin LF, Bremner CG (2000) Laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia: objective followup reveals high recurrence rate. J Am Coll Surg 190:553–560 (discussion 560–551)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diaz S, Brunt LM, Klingensmith ME, Frisella PM, Soper NJ (2003) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair, a challenging operation: medium-term outcome of 116 patients. J Gastrointest Surg 7:59–66 (discussion 66–57)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jobe BA, Aye RW, Deveney CW, Domreis JS, Hill LD (2002) Laparoscopic management of giant type III hiatal hernia and short esophagus. Objective follow-up at three years. J Gastrointest Surg 6:181–188 (discussion 188)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mattar SG, Bowers SP, Galloway KD, Hunter JG, Smith CD (2002) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. Surg Endosc 16:745–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dallemagne B, Kohnen L, Perretta S, Weerts J, Markiewicz S, Jehaes C (2011) Laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. Long-term follow-up reveals good clinical outcome despite high radiological recurrence rate. Ann Surg 253:291–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muller-Stich BP, Holzinger F, Kapp T, Klaiber C (2006) Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: long-term outcome with the focus on the influence of mesh reinforcement. Surg Endosc 20:380–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zaninotto G, Portale G, Costantini M, Fiamingo P, Rampado S, Guirroli E, Nicoletti L, Ancona E (2007) Objective follow-up after laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia. Assessment of safety and durability. World J Surg 31:2177–2183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soricelli E, Basso N, Genco A, Cipriano M (2009) Long-term results of hiatal hernia mesh repair and antireflux laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:2499–2504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Naimark DM, Bott M, Krahn M (2008) The half-cycle correction explained: two alternative pedagogical approaches. Med Decis Making 28:706–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB (1996) Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276:1253–1258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bonrath EM, Grantcharov TP (2015) Contemporary management of paraesophaegeal hernias: establishing a European expert consensus. Surg Endosc 29:2180–2195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Daigle CR, Funch-Jensen P, Calatayud D, Rask P, Jacobsen B, Grantcharov TP (2015) Laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia with anterior gastropexy: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 29:1856–1861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morrow EH, Oelschlager BK (2013) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 23:446–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jutric Z, Louie BE (2013) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 23:436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibanes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Furnee EJ, Draaisma WA, Simmermacher RK, Stapper G, Broeders IA (2010) Long-term symptomatic outcome and radiologic assessment of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair. Am J Surg 199:695–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Targarona EM, Grisales S, Uyanik O, Balague C, Pernas JC, Trias M (2013) Long-term outcome and quality of life after laparoscopic treatment of large paraesophageal hernia. World J Surg 37:1878–1882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    England TRCoSo (2012) Access all ages. Assessing the impact of age on access to surgical treatment. Latimer Trend & Company Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arias E (2012) United States Life Tables, 2008. National vital statistics reports: National Center for Health Statistics 61Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Young MM, Deschamps C, Allen MS, Miller DL, Trastek VF, Schleck CD, Pairolero PC (2000) Esophageal reconstruction for benign disease: self-assessment of functional outcome and quality of life. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1799–1802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Romagnuolo J, Meier MA, Sadowski DC (2002) Medical or surgical therapy for erosive reflux esophagitis: cost-utility analysis using a Markov model. Ann Surg 236:191–202CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Comay D, Adam V, da Silveira EB, Kennedy W, Mayrand S, Barkun AN (2008) The Stretta procedure versus proton pump inhibitors and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Can J Gastroenterol 22:552–558CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V (2006) Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making 26:410–420CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, O’Brien BJ (2002) Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making 22:290–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations