Abstract
Background
New evidence has emerged since latest guidelines on the management of paraesophageal hernia, and guideline development methodology has evolved. Members of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery have prioritized the management of paraesophageal hernia to be addressed by pertinent recommendations.
Objective
To develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on paraesophageal hernias, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders.
Methods
We performed three systematic reviews, and we summarized and appraised the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. A panel of general and upper gastrointestinal surgeons, gastroenterologists and a patient advocate discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost and use of resources, moderated by a Guidelines International Network-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey.
Results
The panel suggests surgery over conservative management for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias (conditional recommendation), and recommends conservative management over surgery for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias in frail patients (strong recommendation). Further, the panel suggests mesh over sutures for hiatal closure in paraesophageal hernia repair, fundoplication over gastropexy in elective paraesophageal hernia repair, and gastropexy over fundoplication in patients who have cardiopulmonary instability and require emergency paraesophageal hernia repair (conditional recommendation). A strong recommendation means that the proposed course of action is appropriate for the vast majority of patients. A conditional recommendation means that most patients would opt for the proposed course of action, and joint decision-making of the surgeon and the patient is required. Accompanying evidence summaries and evidence-to-decision frameworks should be read when using the recommendations. This guideline applies to adult patients with moderate to large paraesophageal hernias type II to IV with at least 50% of the stomach herniated to the thoracic cavity. The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j7q7Gn.
Conclusion
An interdisciplinary panel provides recommendations on key topics on the management of paraesophageal hernias using highest methodological standards and following a transparent process.
Guideline registration number
PREPARE-2023CN018.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Landreneau RJ, Del Pinto M, Santos R (2005) Management of paraesophageal hernias. Surg Clin North Am 85:411–432
Aye RW, Blitz M, Farivar A et al (2011) Repair of symptomatic giant paraesophageal hernias in elderly (>70 years) patients results in improved quality of life. J Gastrointest Surg 15:389–396
Patel NM, Puri A, Sounderajah V et al (2021) Quality of life and symptom assessment in paraesophageal hernias: a systematic review of reporting standards. Dis Esophagus 34:1–10
Carrot PW, Hong J, Kuppusamy M et al (2012) Repair of giant paraesophageal hernia routinely produces improvement in respiratory function. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 143:398–404
El Khoury R, Ramirez M, Hungness ES et al (2015) Symptom relief after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair without mesh. J Gastrointest Surg 19:1938–1942
Kohn GP, Price RR, DeMeester SR et al (2013) Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc 27:4409–4428
Stylopoulos N, Gazelle GS, Rattner DW (2002) Paraesophageal hernias: operation or observation? Ann Surg 236:492–501
Buenaventura PO, Christie NA, Fernando HC et al (2002) Results of laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernias: 200 consecutive patients. Ann Thorac Surg 74:1909–1915
Tam V, Luketich JD, Levy R et al (2014) Mesh cruroplasty in laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernias is not associated with better long-term outcomes compared to primary repair. Gastroenterology 146:S1062
Frantzides CT, Madan AK, Carlson MA, Stavropoulos GP (2002) A prospective, randomized trial of laparoscopic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch repair vs simple cruroplasty for large hiatal hernia. Arch Surg 137(6):649–652. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.137.6.649
Fuchs KH, Babic B, Breithaupt W et al (2014) EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 28:1753–1773
European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (2022) Outcome of the EAES poll to prioritize topics for future guidelines. https://eaes.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-05-09-poll.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2022
Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (2013) GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Accessed 1 Jan 2022
AGREE-S: AGREE II extension for guidelines on surgical interventions (2021) https://agree-s.org/. Accessed 1 Jan 2022
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, Ollenschläger G, Phillips S, van der Wees P; Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network (2012) Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 156(7):525–531. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00009
Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, Affengruber L, Stevens A (2021) Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 130:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
(2022) Appendix files for EAES Multidisciplinary Rapid Guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of paraesophageal hernias. http://bit.ly/3r68WKm. Accessed 4 July 2023
Schünemann HJ, Al-Ansary LA, Forland F, Kersten S, Komulainen J, Kopp IB, Macbeth F, Phillips SM, Robbins C, van der Wees P, Qaseem A, Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network (2015) Guidelines International Network: principles for disclosure of interests and management of conflicts in guidelines. Ann Intern Med 163(7):548–553. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1885
European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (2023) Guideline protocol: EAES multidisciplinary rapid guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of paraesophageal hernias. https://eaes.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Protocol-draft-HIHE.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2023
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, Alderson P, Glasziou P, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012
Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Iorio A, Alper BS, Meerpohl JJ, Murad MH, Ansari MT, Katikireddi SV, Östlund P, Tranæus S, Christensen R, Gartlehner G, Brozek J, Izcovich A, Schünemann H, Guyatt G (2017) The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 87:4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006
Tsujimoto Y, Fujii T, Tsutsumi Y, Kataoka Y, Tajika A, Okada Y, Carrasco-Labra A, Devji T, Wang Y, Guyatt GH, Furukawa TA (2022) Minimal important changes in standard deviation units are highly variable and no universally applicable value can be determined. J Clin Epidemiol 145:92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.017
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 28(366):l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JP (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 12(355):i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT (2021) Risk-of-bias visualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods 12(1):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1411
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR (2010) A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Method 1:97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12
Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G (2014) How to interpret meta-analysis models: fixed effect and random effects meta-analyses. Evid Based Ment Health 17(2):64. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2014-101794
Watson DI, Thompson SK, Devitt PG, Smith L, Woods SD, Aly A, Gan S, Game PA, Jamieson GG (2015) Laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable mesh versus nonabsorbable mesh: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 261(2):282–289. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000842
Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid-Based Ment Health 22:153–160
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/
Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, Bender R, Bowden J, Knapp G, Kuss O, Higgins JP, Langan D, Salanti G (2016) Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 7(1):55–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1164
Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (2013) GRADE handbook: 5 quality of evidence. https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html#h.9rdbelsnu4iy. Accessed 1 Jan 2022
Pai M, Yeung CHT, Akl EA, Darzi A, Hillis C, Legault K, Meerpohl JJ, Santesso N, Taruscio D, Verhovsek M, Schünemann HJ, Iorio A (2019) Strategies for eliciting and synthesizing evidence for guidelines in rare diseases. BMC Med Res Methodol 19(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0713-0
Oude Nijhuis RAB, Hoek MV, Schuitenmaker JM, Schijven MP, Draaisma WA, Smout AJPM, Bredenoord AJ (2020) The natural course of giant paraesophageal hernia and long-term outcomes following conservative management. United Eur Gastroenterol J 8(10):1163–1173. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640620953754
Sihvo EI, Salo JA, Räsänen JV, Rantanen TK (2009) Fatal complications of adult paraesophageal hernia: a population-based study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137(2):419–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.05.042
Analatos A, Håkanson BS, Lundell L, Lindblad M, Thorell A (2020) Tension-free mesh versus suture-alone cruroplasty in antireflux surgery: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Br J Surg 107(13):1731–1740. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11917
Oor JE, Roks DJ, Koetje JH, Broeders JA, van Westreenen HL, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Hazebroek EJ (2018) Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using sutures versus sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh. Surg Endosc 32(11):4579–4589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6211-3
Ilyashenko VV, Grubnyk VV, Grubnik VV (2018) Laparoscopic management of large hiatal hernia: mesh method with the use of ProGrip mesh versus standard crural repair. Surg Endosc 32(8):3592–3598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6087-2
Koetje JH, Irvine T, Thompson SK, Devitt PG, Woods SD, Aly A, Jamieson GG, Watson DI (2015) Quality of life following repair of large hiatal hernia is improved but not influenced by use of mesh: results from a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 39(6):1465–1473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-2970-3
Watson DI, Thompson SK, Devitt PG, Aly A, Irvine T, Woods SD, Gan S, Game PA, Jamieson GG (2020) Five year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable versus nonabsorbable mesh. Ann Surg 272(2):241–247. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003734
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
Oelschlager BK, Petersen RP, Brunt LM, Soper NJ, Sheppard BC, Mitsumori L, Rohrmann C, Swanstrom LL, Pellegrini CA (2012) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: defining long-term clinical and anatomic outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 16(3):453–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1743-z
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
Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Schweiger UM, Pointner R (2006) Impact of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure on esophageal body motility: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 141(7):625–632. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.141.7.625 (Erratum in: Arch Surg 2007;142(6):579)
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 140(1):40–48. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.140.1.40
Frantzides CT, Richards CG, Carlson MA (1999) Laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernia with polytetrafluoroethylene. Surg Endosc 13(9):906–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901131
Carlson MA, Richards CG, Frantzides CT (1999) Laparoscopic prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal herniorrhaphy. Dig Surg 16(5):407–410. https://doi.org/10.1159/000018756
Dara V, Croo A, Peirsman A, Pattyn P (2019) Necessity of fundoplication and mesh in the repair of the different types of paraesophageal hernia. Acta Gastroenterol Belg 82(2):251–256
Levy G, Aye RW, Farivar AS, Louie BE (2017) A combined Nissen plus hill hybrid repair for paraesophageal hernia improves clinical outcomes and reduces long-term recurrences compared with laparoscopic Nissen alone. J Gastrointest Surg 21(1):121–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-016-3225-9
Pallabazzer G, Santi S, Parise P, Solito B, Giusti P, Rossi M (2011) Giant hiatal hernias: direct hiatus closure has an acceptable recurrence rate. Updates Surg 63(2):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-011-0066-7
Boushey RP, Moloo H, Burpee S, Schlachta CM, Poulin EC, Haggar F, Trottier DC, Mamazza J (2008) Laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernias: a Canadian experience. Can J Surg 51(5):355–360
McLean TR, Haller CC, Lowry S (2006) The need for flexibility in the operative management of type III paraesophageal hernias. Am J Surg 192(5):e32–e36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.08.030
Wu JS, Dunnegan DL, Soper NJ (1999) Clinical and radiologic assessment of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 13(5):497–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901021
Leese T, Perdikis G (1998) Management of patients with giant paraesophageal hernia. Dis Esophagus 11(3):177–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/11.3.177
Oddsdottir M, Franco AL, Laycock WS, Waring JP, Hunter JG (1995) Laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. New access, old technique. Surg Endosc 9(2):164–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00191959
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
Andujar JJ, Papasavas PK, Birdas T, Robke J, Raftopoulos Y, Gagné DJ, Caushaj PF, Landreneau RJ, Keenan RJ (2004) Laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hernia is associated with a low incidence of recurrence and reoperation. Surg Endosc 18(3):444–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-8823-4
Müller-Stich BP, Achtstätter V, Diener MK, Gondan M, Warschkow R, Marra F, Zerz A, Gutt CN, Büchler MW, Linke GR (2015) Repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernias—is a fundoplication needed? A randomized controlled pilot trial. J Am Coll Surg 221(2):602–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.03.003
Jung JJ, Naimark DM, Behman R, Grantcharov TP (2018) Approach to asymptomatic paraesophageal hernia: watchful waiting or elective laparoscopic hernia repair? Surg Endosc 32(2):864–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5755-y
Stylopoulos N, Gazelle GS, Rattner DW (2002) Paraesophageal hernias: operation or observation? Ann Surg 236(4):492–500. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200210000-00012 (discussion 500–501)
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Prof. Peter Grimminger for his contribution in prioritizing outcomes and defining minimal important differences.
Disclaimer
This clinical practice guideline has been developed under the auspice of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). It is intended to be used primarily by health professionals (e.g., surgeons, anesthetists, physicians) and to assist in making informed clinical decisions on diagnostic measures and therapeutic management. It is also intended to inform individual practice of allied health professionals (e.g., surgical nurses, dieticians, physical rehabilitation therapists, psychologists); to inform strategic planning and resource management by health care authorities (e.g., regional and national authorities, health care institutions, hospital administration authorities); and to inform patients wishing to obtain an overview of the condition of interest and its management. The use of recommendations contained herein must be informed by supporting evidence accompanying each recommendation and by research evidence that might not have been published by the time of writing the present document. Users must thus base their actions informed by newly published evidence at any given point in time. The information in the guideline should not be relied upon as being complete or accurate, nor should it be considered as inclusive of all proper treatments or methods of care or as a statement of the standard of care. With the rapid development of scientific knowledge, new evidence may emerge between the time the guideline is developed and when it is published or read. The guideline is not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. The guideline addresses only the topics specifically identified therein and is not applicable to other interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. This guideline does not mandate any particular course of medical care. Further, the guideline is not intended to substitute the independent professional judgment of the treating provider, as the guideline does not necessarily account for individual variation among patients. Even if evidence on a topic suggests a specific diagnostic and/or treatment action, users and especially health professionals may need to decide against the suggested or recommended action in view of circumstances related to patient values, preferences, co-morbidities and disease characteristics; available human, financial and material resources; and healthcare infrastructures. EAES provides this guideline on an “as is” basis, and makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the guideline.
Funding
This project was funded by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. The funding body had no influence on the development of this rapid guideline or its protocol. There is no grant number linked to this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Sheraz R. Markar, Nainika Menon, Nadia Guidozzi, Katerina-Maria Kontouli, Dimitrios Mavridis, Alexandros Andreou, Felix Berlth, Luigi Bonavina, Alfred Cushieri, Lana Fourie, James Gossage, Caroline Gronnier, Eric J. Hazebroek, Sheila Krishnadath, Donald E. Low, Mimi McCord, Roos E. Pouw, David I. Watson, Francesco Maria Carrano, Monica Ortenzi and Stavros A. Antoniou declare no direct conflicts of interest related to this work. Indirect conflicts of external advisors were documented and managed as per Guidelines International Network Standards. Detailed conflict of interest statements of all contributors can be found in http://bit.ly/3r68WKm. A patient version of this guideline is available in Supplementary File 1.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Markar, S.R., Menon, N., Guidozzi, N. et al. EAES Multidisciplinary Rapid Guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of paraesophageal hernias. Surg Endosc 37, 9013–9029 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10511-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10511-1