Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation.
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.
Parker
Michael
M
Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Florida, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Bowers
Steven P
SP
Bray
Jillian M
JM
Harris
Adam S
AS
Belli
Erol V
EV
Pfluke
Jason M
JM
Preissler
Susanne
S
Asbun
Horacio J
HJ
Smith
C Daniel
CD
D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D006551:Hernia, Hiatal / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D017211:Treatment Failure
Ann Surg. 2006 Jul;244(1):42-51
16794388
J Laparoendosc Surg. 1993 Aug;3(4):331-8
8268502
Endoscopy. 2001 Jul;33(7):590-4
11473330
Int J Surg. 2008 Apr;6(2):106-9
18234570
Endoscopy. 2008 Sep;40 Suppl 2:E70
18633891
J Am Coll Surg. 1997 Apr;184(4):399-400
9100687
Arch Surg. 2002 Jun;137(6):649-52
12049534
Ann Surg. 2005 Jun;241(6):861-9; discussion 869-71
15912035
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Feb;139(2):395-404, 404.e1
20004917
Am J Surg. 2003 Jul;186(1):4-8
12842738
Am J Surg. 1999 May;177(5):354-8
10365868
Br J Surg. 1998 Feb;85(2):272-5
9501834
J Am Coll Surg. 2000 May;190(5):553-60; discussion 560-1
10801022
Surg Endosc. 2009 Jun;23(6):1219-26
19067074
Ann Surg. 2000 Oct;232(4):608-18
10998659
Ann Surg. 1999 Oct;230(4):595-604; discussion 604-6
10522729
Surg Endosc. 2001 Jul;15(7):691-9
11591970
J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 May;12(5):953-7
17882502
Arch Surg. 2005 Jan;140(1):40-8
15655204
Arch Surg. 2004 Dec;139(12):1286-96; discussion 1296
15611451
Am J Surg. 1992 Apr;163(4):425-30
1532701
Surg Endosc. 2000 Nov;14(11):1015-8
11116408
Ann Surg. 2006 Oct;244(4):481-90
16998356
Surg Endosc. 2000 Feb;14(2):164-9
10656953
Surg Endosc. 2002 Apr;16(4):572-7
11972190
Arch Surg. 2006 Jul;141(7):625-32
16847231
J Gastrointest Surg. 2002 Mar-Apr;6(2):181-8; discussion 188
11992803