Hiatal hernia repair with mesh: a survey of SAGES members
Background Primary repair of large hiatal hernia is associated with a high recurrence rate. The use of mesh may reduce this recurrence rate. The indication for mesh use, the type of mesh to use, and the placement technique are controversial. A survey of surgeon practice was undertaken to obtain a be...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2010-05, Vol.24 (5), p.1017-1024 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Primary repair of large hiatal hernia is associated with a high recurrence rate. The use of mesh may reduce this recurrence rate. The indication for mesh use, the type of mesh to use, and the placement technique are controversial. A survey of surgeon practice was undertaken to obtain a better understanding of the controversies surrounding this clinical problem.
Methods
A questionnaire on the technique and results of mesh hiatal herniorrhaphy was sent to 1,192 members of the Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES).
Results
There were 275 responses; 261 of these were analyzed. A total of 5,486 hiatal hernia repairs with mesh were reported; 77% and 23% were performed laparoscopically vs open, respectively. The most common indication for mesh usage was an increased size hiatal defect (46% of respondents). The most common mesh types were biomaterial (28%), polytetrafluoroethylene (25%), and polypropylene (21%). Suture anchorage was the most common fixation technique (56% of respondents). The findings showed a failure rate of 3%, a stricture rate of 0.2%, and an erosion rate of 0.3%. Biomaterial tended to be associated with failure, whereas nonabsorbable mesh tended to be associated with stricture and erosion.
Conclusions
The use of mesh during hiatal hernia repair resulted in a reported recurrence rate which appeared to be lower than that obtained historically without mesh. No one mesh type was clearly superior in terms of avoiding failure and complication. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00464-009-0718-6 |