Advertisement

Netztechnologie in der Versorgung von Hiatushernien

  • Ferdinand Köckerling
  • Beat P. Müller-Stich
  • Bruce Ramshaw

Zusammenfassung

Die laparoskopische Reparation von großen Hiatushernien zeigt eine hohe Rezidivrate. In den Leitlinien zur Behandlung der Hiatushernie wird auf der Basis eines moderaten Evidenzlevels festgestellt, dass die Netzaugmentation bei großen Hiatushernien zu einer niedrigeren Rezidivrate innerhalb eines kurzen Nachbeobachtungszeitraums führt. Erosionen und Netzmigrationen stellen seltene, aber schwerwiegende Komplikationen der Verwendung von synthetischen Netzen am Hiatus dar. Bei Durchführung einer Hiatoplastik muss somit das höhere Rezidivrisiko bei Versorgung ohne Mesh-Augmentation abgewogen werden gegen die potenziellen Risiken bei der Durchführung einer Netzaugmentation in Form von Erosionen, Netzmigration und möglichen aufwendigen Resektionen.

Literatur

  1. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) Lower recurrence rates after mesh-reinforced versus simple hiatal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22 (6): 498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniou SA, Müller-Stich BP, Antoniou GA, Köhler G, Luketina RR, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2015a) Laparoscopic augmentation of the diaphragmatic hiatus with biologic mesh versus suture repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 400 (5): 577–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoniou SA, Pointner R, Granderath FA, Köckerling F (2015b) The use of biological meshes in diaphragmatic defects – an evidence-based review of the literature. Front Sur 2: 56Google Scholar
  4. De Moor V, Zalcman M, Delhaye M, El Nakadi I (2012) Complications of mesh repair in hiatal surgery: about 3 cases and review of the literature. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22 (4): e222–5Google Scholar
  5. Furnée E, Hazebroek (2013) Mesh in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Surg Endosc 27 (11): 3998–4008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hazebroek EJ, Leibman S, Smith GS (2009) Erosion of a composite PTFE/ePTFE mesh after hiatal hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19 (2): 175–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kohn GP, Price RR, Demeester SR, Zehetner J, Muensterer OJ, Awad ZT, Mittal SK, Richardson WS, Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD and the SAGES Guidelines Committee (2013) Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, http://www.sages.org
  8. Memon MA, Memon B, Yunus RM, Khan S (2016) Suture cruroplasty versus prothetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg263 (2): 258–66Google Scholar
  9. Müller-Stich BP, Kenngott HG, Gondan M, Stock, C, Linke GR, Fritz F, Nickel F, Diener MK, Gutt CN, Wente M, Büchler MW, Fischer L (2015) Use of mesh in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a meta-analysis and risk-benefit analysis. PLOS ONE, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139547CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. Ann Surg 244: 481–490Google Scholar
  11. Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter JG, Brunt ML, Soper NJ, Sheppard BC, Polissar NL, Neradilek MB, Mitsumore LM, Rohrmann CA (2011) Biologic prosthesis to prevent recurrence after laparscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: long-term follow-up from a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg 213 (4): 461–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Parker M, Bowers SP, Bray JM, Harris AS, Belli EV, Pfluke JM, Preissler S, Asbun HJ, Smith CD (2010) Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation. Surg Endosc 24 (12): 3095–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Stadlhuber RJ, Sherif AE, Mittal SK, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr. Brunt M, Hunter JG, Demeester TR, Swanstrom LL, Smith D, Filipi CJ (2009) Mesh complications after prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal closure: a 28-case series. Surg Endosc 23 (6): 1219–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Kohn GP, Reardon PR, Richardson WS, Fanelli RD, The SAGES Guidelines Committee (2010) Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 24: 2647–2669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tam V, Winger DG, Nason KS (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of mesh vs suture cruroplasty in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair. Am J Surg 211 (1): 226–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wassenaar EB, Mier F, Sinan H, Petersen RP, Martin AV, Pellegini CA, Oelschlager BK (2012) The safety of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc 26 (5): 1360–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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): 282–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferdinand Köckerling
    • 1
  • Beat P. Müller-Stich
    • 2
  • Bruce Ramshaw
    • 3
  1. 1.Chirurgie – Visceral- und Gefäßchirurgie; Vivantes Klinikum SpandauZentrum für Minimal Invasive ChirurgieBerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und TransplantationschirurgieUniversität HeidelbergHeidelbergDeutschland
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity Surgeons AssociatesKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations