Predictors of Hiatal Hernia Recurrence After Laparoscopic Anti-reflux Surgery with Hiatal Hernia Repair: a Prospective Database Analysis
The aim of this study is to identify factors that can predict hiatal hernia recurrence (HHR) in patients after anti-reflux surgery with hiatal hernia (HH) repair.
A single-institution, prospectively collected database was reviewed (January 2002–October 2015) with inclusion criteria of GERD and laparoscopic anti-reflux (AR) surgery with HH repair. Demographics, esophageal symptom scores, and pre- and post-upper gastrointestinal imaging (UGI) were collected. Mesh usage, HH type (sliding, paraesophageal (HH) or type IV), and size were evaluated, and patients who had HHR versus those who did not (NHHR) were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS v.23.0.0, with α = 0.05.
Three hundred twenty-two patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 56.9 ± 14.8 years (60.9% female), and mean follow-up was 19.9 ± 23.8 months. 88.2% underwent total fundoplication and 11.8% underwent partial fundoplication. HHR rate was 15.5%. HHR patients had larger HH than the NHHR group. There was no significant difference between groups for age, gender, BMI, race, and mesh usage. Only 3 patients (10.3%) with HHR reported mild-to-moderate heartburn, regurgitation, and solid or liquid dysphagia at 12-month follow-up. Overall reoperation rate was 1% in this population.
HHR is correlated with large hernia size. Mesh use and patient BMI were not predictors, and no correlation was identified between HHR and presence of GERD symptoms. Recurrence after repair is not uncommon, but is asymptomatic in most cases. Reoperation is rare and mesh is not routinely needed. Large asymptomatic HHs in the elderly often do not require intervention.
KeywordsHiatal hernia repair Predictors of recurrence Mesh Body mass index
The contribution of each author, as defined by the ICMJE guidelines, is as follows: PRA: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; drafting and revision; final approval; accuracy and integrity; BP: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; revision; final approval; accuracy and integrity; MM: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; revision; final approval; accuracy and integrity; SP: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; drafting; final approval; accuracy and integrity; DO: design of work, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; revision; final approval; accuracy and integrity.
Funding for this study was provided by the Center for Advanced Surgical Technology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Approval for this study was obtained from our Institutional Review Board.
- 5.Kubasiak J, Hood KC, Daly S, et al. Improved patient outcomes in paraesophageal hernia repair using a laparoscopic approach: A study of the national surgical quality improvement program data. The American Surgeon. 2014;80(9):884–889.Google Scholar
- 6.Jones R, Simorov A, Lomelin D, Tadaki C, Oleynikov D. Long-term outcomes of radiologic recurrence after paraesophageal hernia repair with mesh. Surg Endosc. 2014.Google Scholar
- 7.Oor JE, Roks DJ, Koetje JH, Broeders JA, Van Westreenen HL, Nieuwenhuijs VB. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using sutures versus sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh. Surgical Endoscopy. 2018.Google Scholar
- 8.Simorov A, Ranade A, Jones R, et al. Long-term patient outcomes after laparoscopic anti-reflux procedures. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(1):157–62; discussion 162-3.Google Scholar
- 17.Dallemagne B, Quero G, Lapergola A, Guerriero L, Fiorillo C, Perretta S. Treatment of giant paraesophageal hernia: Pro laparoscopic approach. Hernia. 2017.Google Scholar
- 18.Chang CG, Thackeray L. Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in 221 patients: Outcomes and experience. JSLS. 2016;20(1): https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2015.00104.
- 19.Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter J, et al. Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2006;244(4):481–490.Google Scholar