Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is a circular polypropylene mesh appropriate for application at the esophageal hiatus? Results from an experimental study in a porcine model

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Mesh reinforcement in hiatal hernia surgery is debated. Randomized controlled trials have shown that recurrences may be reduced, but there is also the fear of mesh-related complications. Experimental studies on the characteristics of specific mesh types with regard to the risk of such complications are rare. The current study aimed to investigate the properties of a circular heavy-weight polypropylene mesh in terms of stenosis, migration, erosions, and adhesions in a porcine model.

Methods

A 55 × 55-mm heavy-weight polypropylene mesh with a 16.5-mm eccentric hole for the esophagus corresponding to a calculated mesh area of 2811 mm2 and a hole area of 214 mm2 were implanted in nine German Landrace pigs. Six weeks later, the meshes were explanted and investigated for size, shrinkage, migration and adhesions.

Results

The total mesh area shrank to a mean of 2,040 ± 178 mm2 (p < 0.001), and the hole for the esophagus showed a trend toward an increase to 239 ± 38 mm2 (p = 0.108). In not a single location did the mesh overhang the hiatal margin. The mean distance of retraction from the hiatal margin was 4.3 ± 2.8 mm. Therefore, no stenoses, migrations, or erosions occurred.

Conclusions

A circular heavy-weight polypropylene mesh seems to be appropriate for the application at the esophageal hiatus in terms of safety and stability. This means that it is characterized by a position-stable centered fixation around the esophagus without a tendency toward stenosis, migration, or erosion.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arendt T, Stuber E, Monig H et al (2000) Dysphagia due to transmural migration of surgical material into the esophagus nine years after Nissen fundoplication. Gastrointest Endosc 51:607–610

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baladas HG, Smith GS, Richardson MA et al (2000) Esophagogastric fistula secondary to Teflon pledget: a rare complication following laparoscopic fundoplication. Dis Esophagus 13:72–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Basso N, De Leo A, Genco A et al (2000) 360 degrees laparoscopic fundoplication with tension-free hiatoplasty in the treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 14:164–169

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Carlson MA, Condon RE, Ludwig KA et al (1998) Management of intrathoracic stomach with polypropylene mesh prosthesis reinforced transabdominal hiatus hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 187:227–230

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Casabella F, Sinanan M, Horgan S et al (1996) Systematic use of gastric fundoplication in laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernias. Am J Surg 171:485–489

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen MD, Teigen GA, Reynolds HT et al (1998) Laparoscopy versus laparotomy: an evaluation of adhesion formation after pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in a porcine model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:499–503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Coluccio G, Ponzio S, Ambu V et al (2000) Dislocation into the cardial lumen of a PTFE prosthesis used in the treatment of voluminous hiatal sliding hernia: a case report. Minerva Chir 55:341–345

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dally E, Falk GL (2004) Teflon pledget-reinforced fundoplication causes symptomatic gastric and esophageal lumenal penetration. Am J Surg 187:226–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Desai KM, Diaz S, Dorward IG et al (2006) Histologic results 1 year after bioprosthetic repair of paraesophageal hernia in a canine model. Surg Endosc 20:1693–1697

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dutta S (2007) Prosthetic esophageal erosion after mesh hiatoplasty in a child, removed by transabdominal endogastric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 42:252–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Frantzides CT, Carlson MA (1997) Prosthetic reinforcement of posterior cruroplasty during laparoscopic hiatal herniorrhaphy. Surg Endosc 11:769–771

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Frantzides CT, Madan AK, Carlson MA et al (2002) A prospective, randomized trial of laparoscopic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch repair vs simple cruroplasty for large hiatal hernia. Arch Surg 137:649–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Kamolz T et al (2002) Laparoscopic antireflux surgery with routine mesh-hiatoplasty in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg 6:347–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Kamolz T et al (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 140:40–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Griffith PS, Valenti V, Qurashi K et al (2008) Rejection of Gore-Tex mesh used in prosthetic cruroplasty: a case series. Int J Surg 6:106–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Horgan S, Eubanks TR, Jacobsen G et al (1999) Repair of paraesophageal hernias. Am J Surg 177:354–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hui TT, Thoman DS, Spyrou M et al (2001) Mesh crural repair of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias. Am Surg 67:1170–1174

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Huntington TR (1997) Laparoscopic mesh repair of the esophageal hiatus. J Am Coll Surg 184:399–400

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jansen M, Otto J, Jansen PL et al (2007) Mesh migration into the esophageal wall after mesh hiatoplasty: comparison of two alloplastic materials. Surg Endosc 21:2298–2303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 6:181–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Khaitan L, Houston H, Sharp K et al (2002) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair has an acceptable recurrence rate. Am Surg 68:546–551

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M et al (1998) Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 164:965–969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kuster GG, Gilroy S (1993) Laparoscopic technique for repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernias. J Laparoendosc Surg 3:331–338

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK (1993) The cause, prevention, and treatment of recurrent groin hernia. Surg Clin North Am 73:529–544

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Linke GR, Zerz A, Tutuian R et al (2008) Efficacy of laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty in GERD and symptomatic hiatal hernia: study using combined impedance-pH monitoring. J Gastrointest Surg 12:816–821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Luketich JD, Raja S, Fernando HC et al (2000) Laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia: 100 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 232:608–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Muller-Stich BP, Holzinger F, Kapp T et al (2006) Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: long-term outcome with the focus on the influence of mesh reinforcement. Surg Endosc 20:380–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Muller-Stich BP, Koninger J, Muller-Stich BH et al (2008) Laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty as a method to treat gastroesophageal reflux without fundoplication: single-centre experience with 306 consecutive patients. Am J Surg (in press)

  29. Muller-Stich BP, Linke GR, Borovicka J et al (2008) Laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty as a treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and hiatal hernias: preliminary clinical and functional results of a prospective case series. Am J Surg 195:749–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 244:481–490

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schumpelick V, Klinge U, Welty G et al (1999) Meshes within the abdominal wall. Chirurg 70:876–887

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Smith GS, Hazebroek EJ, Eckstein R et al (2008) Evaluation of DualMesh for repair of large hiatus hernia in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 22:1625–1631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Tatum RP, Shalhub S, Oelschlager BK et al (2008) Complications of PTFE mesh at the diaphragmatic hiatus. J Gastrointest Surg 12:953–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. ten Hallers EJ, Jansen JA, Marres HA et al (2007) Histological assessment of titanium and polypropylene fiber mesh implantation with and without fibrin tissue glue. J Biomed Mater Res A 80:372–380

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Trus TL, Bax T, Richardson WS et al (1997) Complications of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 1:221–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Turkcapar A, Kepenekci I, Mahmoud H et al (2007) Laparoscopic fundoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure. World J Surg 31:2169–2176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Vakili C (2007) Laparoscopic antireflux surgery: tailoring the hiatal closure to the size of the hiatal area. Surg Endosc 21:1900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. van der Peet DL, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Alonso PA et al (2000) Laparoscopic treatment of large paraesophageal hernias: both excision of the sac and gastropexy are imperative for adequate surgical treatment. Surg Endosc 14:1015–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wolf I, Vetter M, Wegner I et al (2005) The medical imaging interaction toolkit. Med Image Anal 9:594–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 

  41. Zilberstein B, Eshkenazy R, Pajecki D et al (2005) Laparoscopic mesh repair antireflux surgery for treatment of large hiatal hernia. Dis Esophagus 18:166–169

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Abdominal, and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Beat P. Müller-Stich, Arianeb Mehrabi, Hannes G. Kenngott, Hamidreza Fonouni, Michael A. Reiter, Gani Kuttymoratov, Felix Nickel, Jörg Köninger & Carsten N. Gutt

  2. Department of Surgery, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Georg R. Linke

  3. Division of Medical and Biological Informatics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Ivo Wolf

Authors
  1. Beat P. Müller-Stich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arianeb Mehrabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hannes G. Kenngott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hamidreza Fonouni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael A. Reiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gani Kuttymoratov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Felix Nickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Georg R. Linke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ivo Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jörg Köninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Carsten N. Gutt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beat P. Müller-Stich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Müller-Stich, B.P., Mehrabi, A., Kenngott, H.G. et al. Is a circular polypropylene mesh appropriate for application at the esophageal hiatus? Results from an experimental study in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 23, 1372–1378 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0185-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0185-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation