Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernias: new classification supported by long-term results

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Mesh repair may decrease the recurrence rate but bears risk of esophageal complications. This study aimed to analyze the long-term results of laparoscopic hiatal repair depending on hiatal surface area (HSA).

Methods

The results from 658 procedures were analyzed. Group 1 had 343 patients with HSA smaller than 10 cm2 (small hernias), for whom primary crural repair was performed. Group 2 had 261 patients with HSA size 10–20 cm2 (large hernias), for whom primary crural repair (subgroup A) or mesh repair (subgroup B) was performed. Group 3 had 54 patients with HSA larger than 20 cm2 (giant hernias), for whom only mesh repair was performed.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 28.6 months (range, 10–48 months). Primary repair results in a higher recurrence rate for large hernias (11.9 %) than for small hernias (3.5 %) (p = 0.0016). For large hernias, the original method of sub-lay lightweight partially absorbable mesh repair provides a lower recurrence rate than primary repair (4.9 % vs 11.9 %; p = 0.0488) and a comparable dysphagia rate (2.1 % vs 2.2 %; p = 0.6533). For giant hernias, mesh repair results in a higher recurrence rate than for large hernias (20 % vs 4.9 %; p = 0.0028). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) HSA recurrence ratio confirmed the correctness of the chosen threshold levels (10 and 20 cm2) for subdividing hernias into three classes according to the new classification.

Conclusions

The authors advise routine measurement of HSA and use of relative classification, primary suturing as the optimal repair for small hernias, the original technique of sub-lay lightweight partially absorbable mesh repair as the apparent best treatment for large hernias, and the original technique for giant hernias, which provides results corresponding to those reported in the literature, although these results require improvement.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Draaisma WA, Gooszen HG, Tournoij E, Broeders JA (2005) Controversies in paraesophageal hernia repair: a review of literature. Surg Endosc 19:1300–1308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Rathore MA, Andrabi SI, Bhatti MI et al (2007) Metaanalysis of recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JSLS 11:456–460

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Targarona EM, Bendahan G, Balague C et al (2004) Mesh in the hiatus: a controversial issue. Arch Surg 139:1286–1296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Andujar JJ, Papasavas PK, Birdas T, Robke J et al (2004) Laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hernia is associated with a low incidence of recurrence and reoperation. Surg Endosc 18:444–447

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 137:649–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter JG et al (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 213:461–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Antoniou SA, Koch OO, Antoniou GA, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) Mesh-reinforced hiatal hernia repair: a review on the effect on postoperative dysphagia and recurrence. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397:19–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frantzides CT, Carlson MA, Loizides S et al (2010) Hiatal hernia repair with mesh: a survey of SAGES members. Surg Endosc 24:1017–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Kamolz T et al (2005) Dysphagia after laparoscopic antireflux surgery: a problem of hiatal closure more than a problem of the wrap. Surg Endosc 19:1439–1446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stadlhuber RJ, Shenf AE, Mittal SK, Fitzqibbons RJ et al (2009) Mesh complications after prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal closure: a 28-case series. Surg Endosc 23:1219–1926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Pointner R (2007) Laparoscopic antireflux surgery: tailoring the hiatal closure to the size of hiatal surface area. Surg Endosc 21:542–548

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Grubnik VV, Malynovskyy AV (2011) Actual questions of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: own experience and literature review. Ukr J Surg 5:95–99

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grubnik VV, Malynovskyy AV, Grubnik OV, Ilyashenko VV (2011) Effectiveness of different types of mesh for laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias. Abstracts of 18th International Congress of European Association for Endoscopic Surgery). Surg Endosc 25:S41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grubnik VV, Malynovskyy AV, Ilyashenko VV (2011) Comparative study of different types of mesh for laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias Abstracts of 2011 scientific session of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons). Surg Endosc 25:S315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Granderath FA, Carlson MA, Champion JK, Szold A, Basso N, Pointner R, Frantzides CT (2006) Prosthetic closure of the esophageal hiatus in large hiatal hernia repair and laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 20:367–379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson JM, Carbonell AM, Carmody BJ et al (2006) Laparoscopic mesh hiatoplasty for paraesophageal hernias and fundoplications: a critical analysis of available literature. Surg Endosc 20:362–366

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Champion JK, McKernan JB (1998) Hiatal size and risk of recurrence after laparoscopic fundoplication (abstract). Surg Endosc 12:565–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dallemagne B, Weerts J, Markiewicz S et al (2006) Clinical results of laparoscopic fundoplication at ten years surgery. Surg Endosc 20:159–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

V. V. Grubnik and A. V. Malynovskyy have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. V. Malynovskyy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grubnik, V.V., Malynovskyy, A.V. Laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernias: new classification supported by long-term results. Surg Endosc 27, 4337–4346 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3069-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3069-2

Keywords

Navigation