Der Chirurg

, Volume 79, Issue 10, pp 974–981 | Cite as

Hiatushernie und Rezidive

Die Achillessehne der Antirefluxchirurgie?
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Trotz guter Langzeitergebnisse der laparoskopischen Antirefluxchirurgie kommt es bei bis zu 10% der Patienten postoperativ zu Komplikationen und/oder neuen oder wieder auftretenden Symptomen der gastroösophagealen Refluxkrankheit. Die diesen Symptomen zugrunde liegenden morphologischen Veränderungen sind im Wesentlichen 2 Problemzonen zuzuordnen: Einerseits der Manschette selbst, andererseits der Art des Zwerchfellverschlusses. Der Verschluss des Hiatus oesophageus stellt einen immer zentraleren Punkt in der Chirurgie der gastroösophagealen Refluxkrankheit dar und rückt damit auch immer mehr in den Mittelpunkt des chirurgischen Interesses. Anhand der Rezidivraten nach laparoskopischer Antirefluxchirurgie wie auch der publizierten Rezidivraten nach „Hiatushernienchirurgie“ versucht die vorliegende Arbeit die Problemzone Hiatushernie zu skizzieren und mögliche Lösungsansätze anzudenken. Dazu wurde die eigene Patientenklientel von 1201 primär laparoskopischen Fundoplikatios und 240 laparoskopischen Re-Fundoplikatios hinsichtlich morphologischer Fehlerursachen, postoperativer Symptome und den daraus resultierenden jeweiligen klinischen Konsequenzen analysiert. Die häufigste morphologische Fehlerursache der zwischen 1993 und 2007 durchgeführten 240 laparoskopischen Re-Fundoplikatios nach vorher fehlgeschlagener offener oder laparoskopischer Fundoplikatio an dieser Abteilung war ein Hiatushernienrezidiv mit konsekutiver intrathorakaler Migration der Antirefluxmanschette, in dieser Arbeit als „slipped Nissen“ bezeichnet. Dagegen sind die in der Zeit der offenen Chirurgie typischen Probleme wie Manschettenlösung oder Teleskopphänomen, beide ausschließlich die Manschette betreffend, in der Ära der laparoskopischen Antirefluxchirurgie heute nahezu eine Rarität. Auch bei wiederholten laparoskopischen Re-Eingriffen ist der Problembereich ausschließlich am Hiatus zu suchen.

Mit der Auseinandersetzung der Problemzone „Hiatus oesophageus“ wird auch klar, dass es bislang keine für Chirurgen relevante Formen oder Größeneinteilung bzw. Definition der Bruchpforte selbst gibt. Diese fehlende Vergleichbarkeit der Bruchpfortengröße ist ein zentrales Problem aller bisherigen Publikationen. Für eine erfolgreiche Antirefluxoperation stellen die Optimierung und Standardisierung des Hiatusverschlusses eventuell auch durch Einsatz prothetischer Verschlusstechniken einen zentralen Faktor dar, bedarf jedoch weiterer eingehender wissenschaftlicher Aufarbeitung in den kommenden Jahren.

Schlüsselwörter

Antirefluxchirurgie Re-Fundoplikatio Hiatoplastik Hiatushernie Hiatushernienrezidiv 

Hiatus hernia and recurrence

The Achilles heel of antireflux surgery?

Abstract

Long-term studies show good postoperative results after laparoscopic antireflux surgery, but still approximately 10% of patients suffer from new or recurrent symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. In the majority of cases the symptoms are caused by morphological changes of the fundic wrap or are related to the hiatal closure. Closure of the esophageal hiatus is therefore becoming more and more the key point of antireflux surgery. The aim of this study was to show the problems caused by the esophageal hiatus and to offer possible solutions. Therefore 1,201 laparoscopic antireflux procedures and 240 refundoplications performed in our department between 1993 and 2007 were analyzed with respect to morphologic reasons for failures and the corresponding symptoms. The most common morphological reason for complications after surgery was failure of the hiatal closure with consecutive intrathoracic migration of the fundic wrap, the so-called slipped Nissen. In the past the typical problems after open antireflux surgery were either that the wrap was too loose, a breakdown of the wrap or a so-called telescope phenomenon, all caused by failure of the fundic wrap and now a rarity since laparoscopic surgery. Even after repeated laparoscopic refundoplications the main problem was always the hiatus. This shows the importance of the crural closure and the necessity of a specific definition of size and form of the hiatus.

The aim of this study was to initiate a discussion leading to a new definition of the hiatus with the focus on the “hiatal surface area” for a better basis for comparison of the published results of antireflux or hiatal surgery.

Keywords

Antireflux surgery Refundoplication Hiatoplasty Hiatus hernia Hiatus hernia recurrence 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Allen MS, Trastek VF, Deschamps C et al. (1993) Intrathoracic stomach. Presentation and results of operation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 105: 253–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allison PR (1973) Hiatus hernia: a 20-year retrospecitve survey. Ann Surg 178: 273–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allison PR (1951) Reflux esophagitis, sliding hiatal hernia, and the anatomy of repair. Surg Gynaecol Obstet 92: 419–431Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aly A, Munt J, Jamieson GG et al. (2005) Laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias. Br J Surg 92: 648–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andujar JJ, Papasavas PK, Birdas T et al. (2004) Laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hernia is associated with a low incidence of recurrence and reoperation. Surg Endosc 18: 444–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bammer T, Pointner R, Hinder R (2000) Standard technique for laparoscopic Nissen and laparoscopic toupet fundoplication. Eur Surg-Acta Chir Austr 32: 3–6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carlson MA, Frantzides CT (2001) Complications and results of primary minimally invasive antireflux procedures: a review of 10,735 reported cases. J Am Coll Surg 193: 428–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeMeester TR, Johnson LF (1975) Evaluation of the Nissen antireflux procedure by esophageal manometry and 24 hour pH monitoring. Am J Surg 129: 94–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diaz S, Brunt LM, Klingensmith ME et al. (2003) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair, a challenging operation: medium-term outcome of 116 patients. J Gastrointest Surg 7: 59–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donahue PE, Larson GM, Stewardson RH et al. (1977) Floppy Nissen fundoplication. Rev Surg 34: 223–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Draaisma WA, Gooszen HG, Tournoij E, Broeders IAMJ (2005) Controversies in paraesophageal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 19: 1300–1308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eypasch E, Williams J, Wood DS et al. (1995) Gastrointestinal quality of life index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg 82: 216–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fein M, Ritter MP, DeMeester TR et al. (1999) Role of the lower esophageal sphincter and hiatal hernia in the pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg 3: 405–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferri LE, Feldman LS, Standbridge D et al. (2005) Should laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair be abandoned in favor of the open approach? Surg Endosc 19: 4–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frik W (1965) Ösophagus (einschl. Hypopharynx). In: Schinz HR et al. (Hrsg) Lehrbuch der Röntgendiagnostik, Bd V, 6. Aufl. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fuchs KH, Fein M, Maroske J et al. (2006) Indication for antireflux surgery. In: Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Pointner R (eds) Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 149–157Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gordon C, Kang JY, Neild PJ, Maxwell JD (2004) Review article: the role of the hiatus hernia in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Blackwell Publishing 20: 719–732Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Kamolz T, Pointner R (2005) Dysphagia after laparoscopic antireflux surgery: a problem of hiatal closure more than a problem of the wrap. Surg Endosc 19: 1439–1446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Pointner R (2007) Laparoscopic antireflux surgery: tailoring the hiatal closure to the size of hiatal surface area. Surg Endosc 21: 542–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Granderath FA, Carlson MA, Champion JK et al. (2006) Prosthetic closure of the esophageal hiatus in loarge hiatal hernia repair and laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 20: 367–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Schweiger UM, Pointner R (2003) Laparoscopic refuncoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure for recurrent hiatal hernia after primary failed antireflux surgery. Arch Surg 138: 902–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Schweiger UM, Pointner R (2002) Long-term follow-up after laparoscopic refundoplication for failed antireflux surgery: quality of life, symptomatic outcome, and patient satisfaction. J Gastrointest Surg 6: 812–817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Schweiger UM, Pointner R (2002) Failed antireflux surgery: quality of life and surgical outcome after laparoscopic refundoplication. Int J Colorectal Dis: 1–10Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hashemi M, Peters JH, DeMeester TR et al. (2000) Laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia: obejective follow-up reveals high recurrence rate. J Am Coll Surg 190: 553–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hatch KF, Daily MF, Christensen BJ, Glasgow RE (2004) Failed fundoplications. Am J Surg 188: 786–791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hunter JG, Smith CD, Branum GD et al. (1999) Laparoscopic fundoplication failures: patterns of failure and response to fundoplication revision. Ann Surg 230: 595–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Igbal A, Awad Z, Simkins J et al. (2006) Repair of 104 failed anti-reflux operations. Ann Surg 244: 42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jobe BA, Aye RW, Deveney CW et al. (2002) Laparoscopic management of giant type III hiatal hernia and short esophagus: objective follow-up at three years. J Gastrointest Surg 6: 181–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson JM, Carbonell AM, Carmody BJ et al. (2006) Laparoscopic mesh hiatoplasty for para-esophageal hernias and fundoplications. Surg Endosc 20: 362–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kahrilas PJ (1999) The role of hiatus hernia in GERD. Yale J Biol Med 72: 101–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khaitan L, Houston H, Sharp K et al. (2002) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair has an acceptable recurrence rate. Am Surg 68: 546–552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leeder PC, Smith G, Dehn TCB (2003) Laparoscopic management of large paraesophageal hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc 17:1372–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Low DE, Mercer CD, James EC, Hill LD (1988) Post Nissen syndrome. Surg Gynecol Obstet 167: 1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mattar SG, Bowers SP, Galloway KD et al. (2002) Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. Surg Endosc 16: 745–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nissen R (1956) Eine einfache Operation zur Beeinflussung der Refluxoesophagitis. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 20: 590–592Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perdikis G, Hinder RA, Filipi CJ et al. (1997) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. Arch Surg 132: 586–590PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sifrim D, Castell D, Den J, Kahrilas PJ (2004) Gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non-acid, and gas reflux. Gut 53: 1024–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Skinner DB, Belsey RH (1976) Surgical management of esophageal reflux and hiatus hernia. Long-term results with 1030 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 53: 33–54Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith CD, McClusky DA, Rajad MA et al. (2005) When fundoplication fails. Redo? Ann Surg 241: 861–871PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith GS, Isaacson JR, Draganic BD et al. (2004) Symptomatic and radiological follow-up after para-esophageal hernia repair. Dis Esophagus 17: 279–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Soper NJ, Dunnegan D (1999) Anatomic fundoplication failure after laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Ann Surg 229: 669–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stein HJ, Feussner H, Siewert JR (1996) Failure of antireflux surgery: causes and management strategies. Am J Surg 171: 36–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stylopoulos N, Gazelle GS, Rattner DW (2002) Paraesophageal hernias: operation or observation? Ann Surg 236: 492–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stylopoulos N, Rattner DW (2005) The history of hiatal hernia surgery. From bowditch to laparoscopy. Ann Surg 241: 185–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Targarona EM, Balagué C, Martinez C et al. (2004) The massive hiatal hernia: dealing with the defect. Lap Surg 11: 161–169Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Targarona EM, Novell J, Vela S et al. (2004) Midterm analysis of safety and quality of life after the laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc 18: 1045–1050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Van Herwaarden MA, Samson M, Smout AJPM (2004) The role of hiatus hernia in gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 16: 831–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung für AllgemeinchirurgieA.ö. Krankenhaus Zell am SeeZell am SeeÖsterreich
  2. 2.Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und minimalinvasive ChirurgieKrankenhaus Neuwerk, MönchengladbachMönchengladbachDeutschland

Personalised recommendations