title: Laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable mesh versus nonabsorbable mesh: a randomized controlled trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Determine whether absorbable or nonabsorbable mesh in repair of large hiatus hernias reduces the risk of recurrence, compared with suture repair.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Repair of large hiatus hernia is associated with radiological recurrence rates of up to 30%, and to improve outcomes mesh repair has been recommended. Previous trials have shown less short-term recurrence with mesh, but adverse outcomes limit mesh use.
  
  
  METHODS
  Multicentre prospective double blind randomized controlled trial of 3 methods of repair: sutures versus absorbable mesh versus nonabsorbable mesh. Primary outcome-hernia recurrence assessed by barium meal radiology and endoscopy at 6 months. Secondary outcomes-clinical symptom scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 126 patients enrolled: 43 sutures, 41 absorbable mesh, and 42 nonabsorbable mesh. Among them, 96.0% were followed up to 12 months, with objective follow-up data in 92.9%. A recurrent hernia (any size) was identified in 23.1% after suture repair, 30.8% after absorbable mesh, and 12.8% after nonabsorbable mesh (P = 0.161). Clinical outcomes were similar, except less heartburn at 3 and 6 months and less bloating at 12 months with nonabsorbable mesh; more heartburn at 3 months, odynophagia at 1 month, nausea at 3 and 12 months, wheezing at 6 months; and inability to belch at 12 months after absorbable mesh. The magnitudes of the clinical differences were small.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  No significant differences were seen for recurrent hiatus hernia, and the clinical differences were unlikely to be clinically significant. Overall outcomes after sutured repair were similar to mesh repair.
authors.affiliation: *Flinders Medical Centre, Department of Surgery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia †Royal Adelaide Hospital, Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia ‡Cabrini Hospital, Malvern, Victoria, Australia; and §Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: David I
authors.initials: DI
authors.lastname: Watson
authors.forename: Sarah K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Thompson
authors.forename: Peter G
authors.initials: PG
authors.lastname: Devitt
authors.forename: Lorelle
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: Simon D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Woods
authors.forename: Ahmad
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Aly
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Gan
authors.forename: Philip A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Game
authors.forename: Glyn G
authors.initials: GG
authors.lastname: Jamieson
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006551:Hernia, Hiatal / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000601:surgery*; D059685:Herniorrhaphy / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012008:Recurrence; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D013537:Sutures; D016896:Treatment Outcome