Mesh complications after prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal closure: a 28-case series |
| |
Authors: | Rudolf J Stadlhuber Amr El Sherif Sumeet K Mittal Robert J Fitzgibbons Jr L Michael Brunt John G Hunter Tom R DeMeester Lee L Swanstrom C Daniel Smith Charles J Filipi |
| |
Institution: | (1) Department of Surgery, Creighton University School of Medicine, 601 N 30th Street, Suite 3740, Omaha, NE 68131-2197, USA;(2) Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA;(3) Department of Surgery, Oregon Health &; Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA;(4) Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA;(5) Department of Surgery, Oregon Clinic, Portland, OR 97214, USA;(6) Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Background Primary laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair is associated with up to a 42% recurrence rate. This has lead to the use of mesh
for crural repair, which has resulted in an improved recurrence rate (0–24%). However, mesh complications have been observed.
Methods We compiled two cases, and our senior author contacted other experienced esophageal surgeons who provided 26 additional cases
with mesh-related complications. Care was taken to retrieve technical operative details concerning mesh size and shape and
implantation technique used.
Results Twenty-six patients underwent laparoscopic and two patients open surgery for large hiatal hernia (n = 28). Twenty-five patients had a concomitant Nissen fundoplication, two a Toupet fundoplication, and one a Watson fundoplication.
Mesh types placed were polypropylene (n = 8), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (n = 12), biological mesh (n = 7), and dual mesh (n = 1). Presenting symptoms associated with mesh complications were dysphagia (n = 22), heartburn (n = 10), chest pain (n = 14), fever (n = 1), epigastric pain (n = 2), and weight loss (n = 4). Main reoperative findings were intraluminal mesh erosion (n = 17), esophageal stenosis (n = 6), and dense fibrosis (n = 5). Six patients required esophagectomy, two patients had partial gastrectomy, and 1 patient had total gastrectomy. Five
patients did not require surgery. In this group one patient had mesh removal by endoscopy. There was no immediate postoperative
mortality, however one patient has severe gastroparesis and five patients are dependent on tube feeding. Two patients died
3 months postoperatively of unknown cause. There is no apparent relationship between mesh type and configuration with the
complications encountered.
Conclusion Complications related to synthetic mesh placement at the esophageal hiatus are more common than previously reported. Multicenter
prospective studies are needed to determine the best method and type of mesh for implantation. |
| |
Keywords: | Hiatal hernia Mesh Prosthetic hiatoplasty Esophageal perforation Mesh erosion |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|