Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The SAGES Manual of Foregut Surgery pp 299–310Cite as

Expert Commentary: Mesh Reinforcement of Hiatal Closure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1490 Accesses

Abstract

Introduction: The principles of PEH repair involve primary closure of the hiatus around the esophagus after complete reduction of the hernia sac. However, this repair is associated with a high failure rate, leading surgeons to consider prosthetic materials to reinforce the hiatal closure. In this chapter, we review the literature comparing outcomes of hiatal mesh reinforcement to simple closure during laparoscopic PEH repair.

Synthetic (Nonabsorbable) Mesh: Synthetic mesh reinforcement seems to reduce at least short-term recurrences of PEH compared to primary closure alone. Multiple RCTs comparing synthetic mesh vs primary closure alone showed no long-term benefit of mesh. A report found use of PTFE for hiatal reinforcement increased case costs by $960+/−70 USD. In addition, the risk of bleeding, stricture, and erosion of mesh into the stomach or esophagus is increased with the use of synthetic mesh during PEH repair.

Absorbable Mesh: Multiple RCTs have compared absorbable synthetic or biologic mesh to simple closure of the hiatus. Most notably, a multicenter RCT by Oelschlager et al. in 2006 compared Surgisis® to simple closure of the diaphragmatic pillars and concluded that hiatal reinforcement with Surgisis® resulted in fewer early recurrences at 6 months. However, on long-term re-evaluation, there was no difference in recurrence rates at 5 years. An important consideration is that biologic meshes have been reported to cost up to $1200 USD per case. Absorbable mesh-related complications are far less common compared to those associated with synthetic nonabsorbable materials. Fibrosis and dysphagia are the most reported sequelae of absorbable mesh.

Summary and Conclusion: Based on published RCTs and meta-analyses, there is insufficient evidence to support routine mesh reinforcement of hiatal closure. There is no evidence that they reduce recurrence long-term recurrence of PEH, and they are associated with increased complications and costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Nathanson LK. Laparoscopic reduction, crural repair, and fundoplication of large hiatal hernia. Am J Surg. 1992;163(4):425–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tam V, Winger DG, Nason KS. A systematic review and meta-analysis of mesh vs suture cruroplasty in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2016;211(1):226–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hedblom CA. The selective surgical treatment of diaphragmatic hernia. Ann Surg. 1931;94(4):776–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hedblom CA. Diaphragmatic hernia: a study of three hundred and seventy eight cases in which operation was performed. JAMA. 1925;85:947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fusco EM. The repair of hiatus hernia with tantalum mesh. Mil Med. 1960;125:189–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Friedman MH, Mackenzie WC. The clinical use of polyvinyl sponge (ivalon) in the repair of oesophageal hiatus hernia. Can J Surg. 1961;4:176–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Merendino KA, Dillard DH. Permanent fixation by teflon mesh of the size of the esophageal diaphragmatic aperture in hiatus herniplasty; a concept in repair. Am J Surg. 1965;110:416–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Le Page PA, et al. Durability of giant hiatus hernia repair in 455 patients over 20 years. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97(3):188–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Memon MA, et al. Suture cruroplasty versus prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2016;263(2):258–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Oelschlager BK, et al. Biologic prosthesis to prevent recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: long-term follow-up from a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213(4):461–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Koetje JH, et al. 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. 2015;39(6):1465–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mattar SG, et al. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(5):745–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Allison PR. Hiatus hernia: (a 20-year retrospective survey). Ann Surg. 1973;178(3):273–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lebenthal A, Waterford SD, Fisichella PM. Treatment and controversies in paraesophageal hernia repair. Front Surg. 2015;2:13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith GS, et al. Symptomatic and radiological follow-up after para-esophageal hernia repair. Dis Esophagus. 2004;17(4):279–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Edelman DS. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with mesh. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1995;5(1):32–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paul MG, et al. Laparoscopic tension-free repair of large paraesophageal hernias. Surg Endosc. 1997;11(3):303–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Frantzides CT, Carlson MA. Prosthetic reinforcement of posterior cruroplasty during laparoscopic hiatal herniorrhaphy. Surg Endosc. 1997;11(7):769–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Watanabe G, et al. Laparoscopic repair of a paraesophageal hiatus hernia without fundoplication. Surg Today. 1997;27(11):1093–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Carlson MA, Richards CG, Frantzides CT. Laparoscopic prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal herniorrhaphy. Dig Surg. 1999;16(5):407–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Granderath FA, et al. Impact of laparoscopic nissen fundoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure on esophageal body motility: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg. 2006;141(7):625–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Frantzides CT, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of laparoscopic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch repair vs simple cruroplasty for large hiatal hernia. Arch Surg. 2002;137(6):649–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Arendt T, et al. Dysphagia due to transmural migration of surgical material into the esophagus nine years after Nissen fundoplication. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51(5):607–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Trus TL, et al. Complications of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg. 1997;1(3):221–7. discussion 228

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Carlson MA, et al. Management of intrathoracic stomach with polypropylene mesh prosthesis reinforced transabdominal hiatus hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;187(3):227–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schauer PR, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair of paraesophageal hernia. Am J Surg. 1998;176(6):659–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Coluccio G, et al. Dislocation into the cardial lumen of a PTFE prosthesis used in the treatment of voluminous hiatal sliding hernia, a case report. Minerva Chir. 2000;55(5):341–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. van der Peet DL, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of large paraesophageal hernias: both excision of the sac and gastropexy are imperative for adequate surgical treatment. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(11):1015–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rumstadt B, et al. Gastric mesh erosion after hiatoplasty for recurrent paraesophageal hernia. Endoscopy. 2008;40(Suppl 2):E70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Griffith PS, et al. Rejection of goretex mesh used in prosthetic cruroplasty: a case series. Int J Surg. 2008;6(2):106–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tatum RP, et al. Complications of PTFE mesh at the diaphragmatic hiatus. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(5):953–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stadlhuber RJ, et al. Mesh complications after prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal closure: a 28-case series. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1219–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Huddy JR, et al. Laparoscopic repair of hiatus hernia: does mesh type influence outcome? A meta-analysis and European survey study. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(12):5209–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Antonakis F, Kockerling F, Kallinowski F. Functional results after repair of large hiatal hernia by use of a biologic mesh. Front Surg. 2016;3:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Oelschlager BK, et al. Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2006;244(4):481–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Watson DI, et al. Laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable mesh versus nonabsorbable mesh: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2015;261(2):282–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jones R, et al. Long-term outcomes of radiologic recurrence after paraesophageal hernia repair with mesh. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(2):425–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Alicuben ET, Worrell SG, DeMeester SR. Resorbable biosynthetic mesh for crural reinforcement during hiatal hernia repair. Am Surg. 2014;80(10):1030–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chiruvella A, Lomelin D, Oleynikov D. A cost-comparison of mesh usage in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. In: Sages. Boston: Sages Archives; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Antoniou SA, et al. Lower recurrence rates after mesh-reinforced versus simple hiatal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22(6):498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Antoniou SA, et al. Laparoscopic augmentation of the diaphragmatic hiatus with biologic mesh versus suture repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2015;400(5):577–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rathore MA, et al. Metaanalysis of recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JSLS. 2007;11(4):456–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Furnee E, Hazebroek E. Mesh in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(11):3998–4008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lidor AO, et al. Long-term quality of life and risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(5):424–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Targarona EM, et al. Long-term outcome and quality of life after laparoscopic treatment of large paraesophageal hernia. World J Surg. 2013;37(8):1878–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mittal SK, et al. Outcomes after repair of the intrathoracic stomach: objective follow-up of up to 5 years. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(2):556–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Mohammed Al Mahroos & Carmen L Mueller

  2. Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Gerald M. Fried

Authors
  1. Mohammed Al Mahroos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carmen L Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerald M. Fried
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald M. Fried .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham, AL, USA

    Jayleen Grams

  2. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Kyle A. Perry

  3. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Ali Tavakkoli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 SAGES

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Al Mahroos, M., Mueller, C.L., Fried, G.M. (2019). Expert Commentary: Mesh Reinforcement of Hiatal Closure. In: Grams, J., Perry, K., Tavakkoli, A. (eds) The SAGES Manual of Foregut Surgery . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96122-4_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96122-4_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96121-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96122-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation