Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2006 Mar;20(3):362-6.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0357-5. Epub 2006 Jan 25.

Laparoscopic Mesh Hiatoplasty for Paraesophageal Hernias and Fundoplications: A Critical Analysis of the Available Literature

Affiliations
Review

Laparoscopic Mesh Hiatoplasty for Paraesophageal Hernias and Fundoplications: A Critical Analysis of the Available Literature

J M Johnson et al. Surg Endosc. .

Abstract

Background: Little grade A medical evidence exists to support the use of prosthetic material for hiatal closure. Therefore, the authors compiled and analyzed all the available literature to determine whether the use of prosthetic mesh in hiatoplasty for routine laparoscopic fundoplications (LF) or for the repair of large (>5 cm) paraesophageal hernias (PEH) would decrease recurrence.

Methods: A literature search was performed using an inclusive list of relevant search terms via Medline/PubMed to identify papers (n = 19) describing the use of prosthetic material to repair the crura of patients undergoing laparoscopic PEH reduction, LF, or both.

Results: Case series (n = 5), retrospective reviews (n = 6), and prospective randomized (n = 4) and nonrandomized (n = 4) trials were identified. Laparoscopic procedures (n = 1,368) were performed for PEH, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal hernia, or a combination of the three. Group A (n = 729) had primary suture repair of the crura, and group B (n = 639) had repair with either interposition of mesh to close the hiatus or onlay of prosthetic material after hiatal or crural closure. The use of mesh was associated with fewer recurrences than primary suture repair in both the LF and PEH groups. The mean follow-up period did not differ between the groups (20.7 months for group A vs. 19.2 months for group B). None of the papers cited any instance of prosthetic erosion into the gastrointestinal tract.

Conclusions: The current data tend to support the use of prosthetic materials for hiatal repair in both routine LF and the repair of large PEHs. Longer and more stringent follow-up evaluation is necessary to delineate better the safety profile of mesh hiatoplasty. Future randomized trials are needed to confirm that mesh repair is superior to simple crural closure.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 53 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 Apr;71(4):1080-6; discussion 1086-7 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2004 Oct;240(4):578-83; discussion 583-5 - PubMed
    1. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1991 Aug;13(2):186-91 - PubMed
    1. Arch Surg. 2002 Jun;137(6):649-52 - PubMed
    1. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989 Oct;84(10):1319-21 - PubMed
Feedback