Predictors of Hiatal Hernia Recurrence After Laparoscopic Anti-reflux Surgery with Hiatal Hernia Repair: a Prospective Database Analysis

  • Priscila R. Armijo
  • Bhavani Pokala
  • Mitchel Misfeldt
  • Spyridon Pagkratis
  • Dmitry OleynikovEmail author
2018 SSAT Poster Presentation



The aim of this study is to identify factors that can predict hiatal hernia recurrence (HHR) in patients after anti-reflux surgery with hiatal hernia (HH) repair.


A single-institution, prospectively collected database was reviewed (January 2002–October 2015) with inclusion criteria of GERD and laparoscopic anti-reflux (AR) surgery with HH repair. Demographics, esophageal symptom scores, and pre- and post-upper gastrointestinal imaging (UGI) were collected. Mesh usage, HH type (sliding, paraesophageal (HH) or type IV), and size were evaluated, and patients who had HHR versus those who did not (NHHR) were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS v.23.0.0, with α = 0.05.


Three hundred twenty-two patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 56.9 ± 14.8 years (60.9% female), and mean follow-up was 19.9 ± 23.8 months. 88.2% underwent total fundoplication and 11.8% underwent partial fundoplication. HHR rate was 15.5%. HHR patients had larger HH than the NHHR group. There was no significant difference between groups for age, gender, BMI, race, and mesh usage. Only 3 patients (10.3%) with HHR reported mild-to-moderate heartburn, regurgitation, and solid or liquid dysphagia at 12-month follow-up. Overall reoperation rate was 1% in this population.


HHR is correlated with large hernia size. Mesh use and patient BMI were not predictors, and no correlation was identified between HHR and presence of GERD symptoms. Recurrence after repair is not uncommon, but is asymptomatic in most cases. Reoperation is rare and mesh is not routinely needed. Large asymptomatic HHs in the elderly often do not require intervention.


Hiatal hernia repair Predictors of recurrence Mesh Body mass index 


Author Contribution

The contribution of each author, as defined by the ICMJE guidelines, is as follows: PRA: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; drafting and revision; final approval; accuracy and integrity; BP: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; revision; final approval; accuracy and integrity; MM: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; revision; final approval; accuracy and integrity; SP: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; drafting; final approval; accuracy and integrity; DO: design of work, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; revision; final approval; accuracy and integrity.


Funding for this study was provided by the Center for Advanced Surgical Technology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Approval for this study was obtained from our Institutional Review Board.


  1. 1.
    Greub G, Liaudet L, Wiesel P, Bettschart V, Schaller M. Respiratory complications of gastroesophageal reflux associated with paraesophageal hiatal hernia. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;2:129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Naoum C, Falk G, Yiannikas J. Exercise-induced left atrial compression by a hiatus hernia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(14):e27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siegal SR, Dolan JP, Hunter JG. Modern diagnosis and treatment of hiatal hernias. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2017;402(8):1145–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koch OO, Schurr M, Antoniou SA, et al. Predictability of hiatal hernia/defect size: Is there a correlation between pre- and intraoperative findings?, Hernia. 2014;18:883–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kubasiak J, Hood KC, Daly S, et al. Improved patient outcomes in paraesophageal hernia repair using a laparoscopic approach: A study of the national surgical quality improvement program data. The American Surgeon. 2014;80(9):884–889.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones R, Simorov A, Lomelin D, Tadaki C, Oleynikov D. Long-term outcomes of radiologic recurrence after paraesophageal hernia repair with mesh. Surg Endosc. 2014.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oor JE, Roks DJ, Koetje JH, Broeders JA, Van Westreenen HL, Nieuwenhuijs VB. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using sutures versus sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh. Surgical Endoscopy. 2018.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simorov A, Ranade A, Jones R, et al. Long-term patient outcomes after laparoscopic anti-reflux procedures. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(1):157–62; discussion 162-3.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eubanks TR, Omelanczuk P, Hillel A, Maronian N, Pope CE, Pellegrini CA. Pharyngeal pH measurements in patients with respiratory symptoms before and during proton pump inhibitor therapy. Am J Surg. 2001;181(5):466–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patti MG, Pellegrini CA, Arcerito M, Tong J, Mulvihill SJ, Way LW. Comparison of medical and minimally invasive surgical therapy for primary esophageal motility disorders. Archives of Surgery. 1995;130(6):609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lomelin D, Smith A, Bills N, et al. Long-term effectiveness of Strattice in the laparoscopic closure of paraesophageal hernias. Surg Innov. 2017;24(3):259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grubnik VV, Malynovskyy AV. Laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernias: New classification supported by long-term results. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(11):4337–4346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hashemi M, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, et al. Laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia: Objective followup reveals high recurrence rate. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190(5):553–60; discussion 560-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Antiporda M, Veenstra B, Jackson C, Kandel P, Daniel Smith C, Bowers SP. Laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia: Are there factors associated with anatomic recurrence?, Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):945–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lidor AO, Kawaji Q, Stem M, et al. Defining recurrence after paraesophageal hernia repair: Correlating symptoms and radiographic findings. Surgery. 2013;154(2):171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    El Lakis MA, Kaplan SJ, Hubka M, Mohiuddin K, Low DE. The importance of age on short-term outcomes associated with repair of giant paraesophageal hernias. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(6):1700–1709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dallemagne B, Quero G, Lapergola A, Guerriero L, Fiorillo C, Perretta S. Treatment of giant paraesophageal hernia: Pro laparoscopic approach. Hernia. 2017.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang CG, Thackeray L. Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in 221 patients: Outcomes and experience. JSLS. 2016;20(1):
  19. 19.
    Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter J, et al. Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2006;244(4):481–490.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Advanced Surgical TechnologyUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  3. 3.College of MedicineUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations