Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation

Michael Parker, Steven P. Bowers, Jillian Lloyd, Adam S. Harris, Erol V. Belli, Jason M. Pfluke, Susanne Preissler, Horacio J. Asbun, C. Daniel Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Mesh-assisted hiatal closure during foregut surgery is increasing. Our aim was to evaluate the complications that follow revisional foregut surgery. Specifically, we compared surgical indications and perioperative outcomes between patients with and without prior hiatal mesh (PHM). Methods: We conducted an institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary-care referral center. Over 37 months, 91 patients underwent revisional foregut surgery. We excluded 13 cases including operations performed primarily for obesity or achalasia. Of the remaining 78 patients, 10 had PHM and 68 were nonmesh patients (NM). Results: The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and rates and types of anatomic failure. Compared with NM patients, PHM patients had increased estimated blood loss (410 vs. 127 ml, p < 0.01) and operative time (4.07 vs. 2.89 h, p < 0.01). The groups had no difference in perioperative blood transfusion or length of stay. Complete fundoplication was more commonly created in NM patients (2/10 vs. 42/68, p = 0.03). Three of the 10 PHM patients and 3 of the 68 NM patients required major resection. Therefore, PHM patients had 6.8-fold increased risk of major resection compared with NM patients [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.585, 29.17; p = 0.05]. The NM patients with multiple prior hiatal operations had 4.6-fold increased risk of major resection compared with those with one prior operation (95% CI = 2.919, 7.384; p = 0.03). In PHM patients, however, the number of prior hiatal operations was not associated with major resection. Conclusions: PHM is associated with increased risk of major resection at revision. The pattern of failure was not different in patients with hiatal mesh, suggesting that hiatal mesh does not eliminate the potential for revision. When performing hiatal herniorrhaphy, the increased risk of recurrence without mesh must be weighed against the potential risk for subsequent major resection when using mesh.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3095-3101
Number of pages7
JournalSurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
Volume24
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tertiary Care Centers
Confidence Intervals
Fundoplication
Esophageal Achalasia
Herniorrhaphy
Research Ethics Committees
Operative Time
Blood Transfusion
Length of Stay
Body Mass Index
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Obesity
Recurrence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Parker, M., Bowers, S. P., Lloyd, J., Harris, A. S., Belli, E. V., Pfluke, J. M., ... Smith, C. D. (2010). Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 24(12), 3095-3101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1095-x

Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation. / Parker, Michael; Bowers, Steven P.; Lloyd, Jillian; Harris, Adam S.; Belli, Erol V.; Pfluke, Jason M.; Preissler, Susanne; Asbun, Horacio J.; Smith, C. Daniel.

In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, Vol. 24, No. 12, 01.12.2010, p. 3095-3101.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Parker, M, Bowers, SP, Lloyd, J, Harris, AS, Belli, EV, Pfluke, JM, Preissler, S, Asbun, HJ & Smith, CD 2010, 'Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation', Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 3095-3101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1095-x
Parker, Michael ; Bowers, Steven P. ; Lloyd, Jillian ; Harris, Adam S. ; Belli, Erol V. ; Pfluke, Jason M. ; Preissler, Susanne ; Asbun, Horacio J. ; Smith, C. Daniel. / Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation. In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2010 ; Vol. 24, No. 12. pp. 3095-3101.
@article{2faaa1650b924988861253818cfc1267,
title = "Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation",
abstract = "Background: Mesh-assisted hiatal closure during foregut surgery is increasing. Our aim was to evaluate the complications that follow revisional foregut surgery. Specifically, we compared surgical indications and perioperative outcomes between patients with and without prior hiatal mesh (PHM). Methods: We conducted an institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary-care referral center. Over 37 months, 91 patients underwent revisional foregut surgery. We excluded 13 cases including operations performed primarily for obesity or achalasia. Of the remaining 78 patients, 10 had PHM and 68 were nonmesh patients (NM). Results: The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and rates and types of anatomic failure. Compared with NM patients, PHM patients had increased estimated blood loss (410 vs. 127 ml, p < 0.01) and operative time (4.07 vs. 2.89 h, p < 0.01). The groups had no difference in perioperative blood transfusion or length of stay. Complete fundoplication was more commonly created in NM patients (2/10 vs. 42/68, p = 0.03). Three of the 10 PHM patients and 3 of the 68 NM patients required major resection. Therefore, PHM patients had 6.8-fold increased risk of major resection compared with NM patients [95{\%} confidence interval (CI) = 1.585, 29.17; p = 0.05]. The NM patients with multiple prior hiatal operations had 4.6-fold increased risk of major resection compared with those with one prior operation (95{\%} CI = 2.919, 7.384; p = 0.03). In PHM patients, however, the number of prior hiatal operations was not associated with major resection. Conclusions: PHM is associated with increased risk of major resection at revision. The pattern of failure was not different in patients with hiatal mesh, suggesting that hiatal mesh does not eliminate the potential for revision. When performing hiatal herniorrhaphy, the increased risk of recurrence without mesh must be weighed against the potential risk for subsequent major resection when using mesh.",
author = "Michael Parker and Bowers, {Steven P.} and Jillian Lloyd and Harris, {Adam S.} and Belli, {Erol V.} and Pfluke, {Jason M.} and Susanne Preissler and Asbun, {Horacio J.} and Smith, {C. Daniel}",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-010-1095-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "3095--3101",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation

AU - Parker, Michael

AU - Bowers, Steven P.

AU - Lloyd, Jillian

AU - Harris, Adam S.

AU - Belli, Erol V.

AU - Pfluke, Jason M.

AU - Preissler, Susanne

AU - Asbun, Horacio J.

AU - Smith, C. Daniel

PY - 2010/12/1

Y1 - 2010/12/1

N2 - Background: Mesh-assisted hiatal closure during foregut surgery is increasing. Our aim was to evaluate the complications that follow revisional foregut surgery. Specifically, we compared surgical indications and perioperative outcomes between patients with and without prior hiatal mesh (PHM). Methods: We conducted an institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary-care referral center. Over 37 months, 91 patients underwent revisional foregut surgery. We excluded 13 cases including operations performed primarily for obesity or achalasia. Of the remaining 78 patients, 10 had PHM and 68 were nonmesh patients (NM). Results: The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and rates and types of anatomic failure. Compared with NM patients, PHM patients had increased estimated blood loss (410 vs. 127 ml, p < 0.01) and operative time (4.07 vs. 2.89 h, p < 0.01). The groups had no difference in perioperative blood transfusion or length of stay. Complete fundoplication was more commonly created in NM patients (2/10 vs. 42/68, p = 0.03). Three of the 10 PHM patients and 3 of the 68 NM patients required major resection. Therefore, PHM patients had 6.8-fold increased risk of major resection compared with NM patients [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.585, 29.17; p = 0.05]. The NM patients with multiple prior hiatal operations had 4.6-fold increased risk of major resection compared with those with one prior operation (95% CI = 2.919, 7.384; p = 0.03). In PHM patients, however, the number of prior hiatal operations was not associated with major resection. Conclusions: PHM is associated with increased risk of major resection at revision. The pattern of failure was not different in patients with hiatal mesh, suggesting that hiatal mesh does not eliminate the potential for revision. When performing hiatal herniorrhaphy, the increased risk of recurrence without mesh must be weighed against the potential risk for subsequent major resection when using mesh.

AB - Background: Mesh-assisted hiatal closure during foregut surgery is increasing. Our aim was to evaluate the complications that follow revisional foregut surgery. Specifically, we compared surgical indications and perioperative outcomes between patients with and without prior hiatal mesh (PHM). Methods: We conducted an institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary-care referral center. Over 37 months, 91 patients underwent revisional foregut surgery. We excluded 13 cases including operations performed primarily for obesity or achalasia. Of the remaining 78 patients, 10 had PHM and 68 were nonmesh patients (NM). Results: The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and rates and types of anatomic failure. Compared with NM patients, PHM patients had increased estimated blood loss (410 vs. 127 ml, p < 0.01) and operative time (4.07 vs. 2.89 h, p < 0.01). The groups had no difference in perioperative blood transfusion or length of stay. Complete fundoplication was more commonly created in NM patients (2/10 vs. 42/68, p = 0.03). Three of the 10 PHM patients and 3 of the 68 NM patients required major resection. Therefore, PHM patients had 6.8-fold increased risk of major resection compared with NM patients [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.585, 29.17; p = 0.05]. The NM patients with multiple prior hiatal operations had 4.6-fold increased risk of major resection compared with those with one prior operation (95% CI = 2.919, 7.384; p = 0.03). In PHM patients, however, the number of prior hiatal operations was not associated with major resection. Conclusions: PHM is associated with increased risk of major resection at revision. The pattern of failure was not different in patients with hiatal mesh, suggesting that hiatal mesh does not eliminate the potential for revision. When performing hiatal herniorrhaphy, the increased risk of recurrence without mesh must be weighed against the potential risk for subsequent major resection when using mesh.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649442162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649442162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-010-1095-x

DO - 10.1007/s00464-010-1095-x

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 3095

EP - 3101

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 12

ER -