Laparoscopic repair of type III/IV giant para-oesophageal herniae with biological prosthesis: a single centre experience
- 30 Downloads
Repair of giant paraoesophageal herniae (GPEH) is technically challenging and requires significant experience in advanced foregut surgery. Controversy continues on suture versus mesh cruroplasty with the most recent systematic review and meta-analysis putting the onus on the operating surgeon. Study aim was to review whether the biological prosthesis (non-cross-linked bovine pericardium and porcine dermis) and the technique adopted for patients with GPEH had an influence on clinical and radiological recurrences.
A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected data of 60 consecutive patients with confirmed 5 cm hiatus hernia and ≥ 30% stomach displacement in the thorax that were operated in the upper gastrointestinal unit of a large district general hospital between September 2010 and August 2017. Pre and post-surgery Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire [(GORD-HRQOL)] and a follow up contrast study were completed.
60 included 2 (3%) and 58 (97%) emergency and elective procedures respectively with a male: female ratio of 1:3, age 71* (Median) (42–89) years, BMI 29* (19–42) and 26 (43%) with ASA III/IV. Investigations confirmed 46* (37–88) mm and 42* (34–77) mm transverse and antero-posterior hiatal defect respectively with 60* (30–100)% displacement of stomach into chest. Operative time and length of stay was 180* (120–510) minutes and 2* (1–30) days respectively. One (2%) converted for bleeding and 2 (3%) peri-operative deaths. Five (8%), 5 (8%) and 4 (7%) have dysphagia, symptomatic and radiological recurrences respectively. GORD-HRQOL recorded preoperatively was 27* (10–39) dropping significantly postoperatively to 0* (0–21) (P < 0.005) with 95% patient satisfaction at a follow up of 60* (36–84) months.
Our technique of laparoscopic GPEH repair with biological prosthesis is safe with a reduced symptomatic and radiological recurrence and an acceptable morbidity and mortality.
KeywordsGiant paraoesophageal herniae Cruroplasty Anti-reflux procedure Biological prosthesis GORD-HRQOL score
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Authors would like to confirm here that there is no conflict of interest.
The study received approval from the local institutional review board. The meshes used were approved for use in the United Kingdom.
Human and animal rights
All procedures performed 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.
Permission were obtained from patients for use in the article.
Supplementary material 1 (MP4 448820 KB)
- 1.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(5):553–560 (discussion 560–551) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Velanovich V, Vallance SR, Gusz JR, Tapia FV, Harkabus MA (1996) Quality of life scale for gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Am Coll Surg 183(3):217–224Google Scholar
- 14.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(4):481–490. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000237759.42831.03 Google Scholar
- 15.Shrestha A, Kumar R, Yusuf M, Abbey Y, Basu S (2013) Repair of type III/IV giant para-oesophageal herniae with biological prosthesis: a 5-year single centre experience. Br J Surg 100(S7):32–33Google Scholar
- 18.Rathore MA, Andrabi SIH, Bhatti MI, Najfi SMH, McMurray A (2007) Metaanalysis of recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg Soc Laparoendosc Surg 11(4):456–460Google Scholar
- 20.Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Kamolz T, Asche KU, Pointner R (2005) Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure reduces postoperative intrathoracic wrap herniation: preliminary results of a prospective randomized functional and clinical study. Arch Surg (Chicago, Ill: 1960) 140(1):40–48. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.140.1.40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Larusson HJ, Zingg U, Hahnloser D, Delport K, Seifert B, Oertli D (2009) Predictive factors for morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: age, ASA score and operation type influence morbidity. World J Surg 33(5):980–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-9958-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Maziac D, Pearson F Massive (paraesophageal) hiatal hernia. Pearson’s thoracic and esophageal surgery, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingstone, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar