Laparoscopic repair of type III/IV giant para-oesophageal herniae with biological prosthesis: a single centre experience.

A K Shrestha, M Joshi, L DeBono, K Naeem, S Basu
Author Information
  1. A K Shrestha: Department of General Surgery, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (EKHUFT), Ashford, Kent, UK.
  2. M Joshi: Department of General Surgery, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (EKHUFT), Ashford, Kent, UK.
  3. L DeBono: Department of Surgery, One Ashford Hospital, Willesborough, Ashford, Kent, UK.
  4. K Naeem: Department of Radiology, EKHUFT, Ashford, Kent, UK.
  5. S Basu: Department of Surgery, EKHUFT, Ashford, Kent, UK. sanjoy.basu@nhs.net.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Repair of giant paraoesophageal herniae (GPEH) is technically challenging and requires significant experience in advanced foregut surgery. Controversy continues on suture versus mesh cruroplasty with the most recent systematic review and meta-analysis putting the onus on the operating surgeon. Study aim was to review whether the biological prosthesis (non-cross-linked bovine pericardium and porcine dermis) and the technique adopted for patients with GPEH had an influence on clinical and radiological recurrences.
METHOD: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected data of 60 consecutive patients with confirmed 5 cm hiatus hernia and ≥ 30% stomach displacement in the thorax that were operated in the upper gastrointestinal unit of a large district general hospital between September 2010 and August 2017. Pre and post-surgery Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire [(GORD-HRQOL)] and a follow up contrast study were completed.
RESULTS: 60 included 2 (3%) and 58 (97%) emergency and elective procedures respectively with a male: female ratio of 1:3, age 71* (Median) (42-89) years, BMI 29* (19-42) and 26 (43%) with ASA III/IV. Investigations confirmed 46* (37-88) mm and 42* (34-77) mm transverse and antero-posterior hiatal defect respectively with 60* (30-100)% displacement of stomach into chest. Operative time and length of stay was 180* (120-510) minutes and 2* (1-30) days respectively. One (2%) converted for bleeding and 2 (3%) peri-operative deaths. Five (8%), 5 (8%) and 4 (7%) have dysphagia, symptomatic and radiological recurrences respectively. GORD-HRQOL recorded preoperatively was 27* (10-39) dropping significantly postoperatively to 0* (0-21) (P < 0.005) with 95% patient satisfaction at a follow up of 60* (36-84) months.
CONCLUSIONS: Our technique of laparoscopic GPEH repair with biological prosthesis is safe with a reduced symptomatic and radiological recurrence and an acceptable morbidity and mortality.

Keywords

References

  1. J Am Coll Surg. 2000 May;190(5):553-60; discussion 560-1 [PMID: 10801022]
  2. Surg Clin North Am. 2000 Aug;80(4):1243-52 [PMID: 10987033]
  3. Arch Surg. 2001 Jul;136(7):745-51 [PMID: 11448383]
  4. Arch Surg. 2003 Mar;138(3):241-6 [PMID: 12611566]
  5. Surg Endosc. 2003 Jul;17(7):1036-41 [PMID: 12658421]
  6. Surg Endosc. 2004 Jan;18(1):31-4 [PMID: 14625746]
  7. Am J Surg. 1992 Apr;163(4):425-30 [PMID: 1532701]
  8. Arch Surg. 2005 Jan;140(1):40-8 [PMID: 15655204]
  9. Ann Surg. 2006 Oct;244(4):481-90 [PMID: 16998356]
  10. JSLS. 2007 Oct-Dec;11(4):456-60 [PMID: 18237510]
  11. World J Surg. 2009 May;33(5):980-5 [PMID: 19277773]
  12. Surg Endosc. 2009 Nov;23(11):2499-504 [PMID: 19343437]
  13. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009 Apr;19(2):175-7 [PMID: 19390288]
  14. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Feb;139(2):395-404, 404.e1 [PMID: 20004917]
  15. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010 Jun;89(6):S2168-73 [PMID: 20494004]
  16. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011 Feb;21(1):1-9 [PMID: 21304379]
  17. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2010;20(2):139-48 [PMID: 21342088]
  18. J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Oct;213(4):461-8 [PMID: 21715189]
  19. Surg Endosc. 2012 Jul;26(7):1843-8 [PMID: 22274928]
  20. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;18(4):297-305 [PMID: 22850094]
  21. Br J Surg. 2012 Oct;99(10):1415-21 [PMID: 22961522]
  22. J Tissue Eng. 2013 Sep 10;4:2041731413505305 [PMID: 24555005]
  23. Ann Surg. 2015 Feb;261(2):282-9 [PMID: 25119120]
  24. Am J Surg. 2016 Jan;211(1):226-38 [PMID: 26520872]
  25. J Am Coll Surg. 1996 Sep;183(3):217-24 [PMID: 8784314]
  26. Dis Esophagus. 1997 Jan;10(1):47-50 [PMID: 9079274]
  27. Am J Surg. 1998 Dec;176(6):659-65 [PMID: 9926809]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Animals
Bioprosthesis
Cattle
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gastroesophageal Reflux
Hernia, Hiatal
Herniorrhaphy
Humans
Laparoscopy
Male
Middle Aged
Operative Time
Patient Satisfaction
Prostheses and Implants
Prosthesis Implantation
Quality of Life
Recurrence
Retrospective Studies
Stomach
Surveys and Questionnaires
Sutures
United Kingdom

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0respectivelyherniaeGPEHbiologicalprosthesisradiologicalGORD-HRQOLgiantparaoesophagealexperiencereviewtechniquepatientsrecurrences60confirmedstomachdisplacementfollow23%III/IVmm60*8%symptomaticrepairPURPOSE:RepairtechnicallychallengingrequiressignificantadvancedforegutsurgeryControversycontinuessutureversusmeshcruroplastyrecentsystematicmeta-analysisputtingonusoperatingsurgeonStudyaimwhethernon-cross-linkedbovinepericardiumporcinedermisadoptedinfluenceclinicalMETHOD:retrospectiveanalysisprospectivelycollecteddataconsecutive5 cmhiatushernia≥ 30%thoraxoperateduppergastrointestinalunitlargedistrictgeneralhospitalSeptember2010August2017Prepost-surgeryGastro-OesophagealRefluxDiseaseQuestionnaire[]contraststudycompletedRESULTS:included5897%emergencyelectiveproceduresmale:femaleratio1:3age71*Median42-89yearsBMI29*19-422643%ASAInvestigations46*37-8842*34-77transverseantero-posteriorhiataldefect30-100%chestOperativetimelengthstay180*120-510minutes2*1-30daysOne2%convertedbleedingperi-operativedeathsFive547%dysphagiarecordedpreoperatively27*10-39droppingsignificantlypostoperatively0*0-21P < 000595%patientsatisfaction36-84monthsCONCLUSIONS:laparoscopicsafereducedrecurrenceacceptablemorbiditymortalityLaparoscopictypepara-oesophagealprosthesis:singlecentreAnti-refluxprocedureBiologicalCruroplastyscoreGiant

Similar Articles

Cited By