title: Quality of Life Following Repair of Large Hiatal Hernia is Improved but not Influenced by Use of Mesh: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Laparoscopic surgery is the treatment of choice for repair of large hiatus hernia, but can be followed by recurrence. Repair with prosthetic mesh has been recommended to prevent recurrence, although complications following mesh repair have generated disagreement about whether or not mesh should be used. The early objective and clinical results of a randomized trial of repair with mesh versus sutures have been reported, and revealed few differences. In the current study, we evaluated quality of life outcomes within this trial at follow-up to 2 years.
  
  
  METHODS
  In a multicenter prospective double-blind randomized trial three methods for repair of large hiatus hernia were compared: sutures versus repair with absorbable mesh (Surgisis) versus non-absorbable (Timesh). Quality of life assessment using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire was undertaken at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. SF-36 outcomes (8 individual scales and 2 composite scales) were determined for each group, and compared between groups, and across different follow-up points.
  
  
  RESULTS
  126 patients were enrolled-43 sutures, 41 absorbable mesh and 42 non-absorbable mesh. 115 (91.3%) completed a preoperative questionnaire, and 113 (89.7%) completed the post-operative questionnaire at 3 months, 116 (92.1%) at 6 months, 114 (90.5%) at 12 months, and 91 (72.2%) at 24 months. The SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) improved significantly following surgery, and this improvement was sustained across 24 months follow-up (p < 0.001 for PCS and MCS at each follow-up point). There were no significant differences between the groups for the component scores or the eight SF-36 subscale scores at each follow-up time. 29 individuals had a recurrence at 6 months follow-up, of which 9 were symptomatic. The PCS were higher in patients with recurrence versus without (p < 0.01), and in patients with a symptomatic recurrence versus asymptomatic recurrence versus no recurrence (p = 0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  SF-36 measured quality of life improved significantly after repair of large hiatal hernia at up to 2 years follow-up, and there were no differences in outcome for the different repair techniques. The use of mesh versus no mesh in repair of large hiatal hernia did not influence quality of life.
authors: Flinders University Department of Surgery, Room 3D211, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia.
authors: Jan H
authors: JH
authors: Koetje
authors: Tanya
authors: T
authors: Irvine
authors: Sarah K
authors: SK
authors: Thompson
authors: Peter G
authors: PG
authors: Devitt
authors: Simon D
authors: SD
authors: Woods
authors: Ahmad
authors: A
authors: Aly
authors: Glyn G
authors: GG
authors: Jamieson
authors: David I
authors: DI
authors: Watson
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006551:Hernia, Hiatal / Q000601:surgery*; D059685:Herniorrhaphy / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D011184:Postoperative Period; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011788:Quality of Life; D012008:Recurrence; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013537:Sutures
references: Surg Endosc. 2009 Jun;23(6):1219-26
references: 19067074
references: Ann Surg. 2015 Feb;261(2):282-9
references: 25119120
references: Arch Surg. 2002 Jun;137(6):649-52
references: 12049534
references: World J Surg. 2002 Oct;26(10):1234-8
references: 12181605
references: Dig Surg. 1999;16(5):407-10
references: 10567802
references: Chirurg. 1998 Sep;69(9):947-50
references: 9816452
references: J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Aug;12(8):1459-64
references: 18213501
references: Ann Pharmacother. 1999 Oct;33(10):1032-6
references: 10534213
references: Surg Endosc. 2004 Mar;18(3):444-7
references: 14752653
references: Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov;27(11):3998-4008
references: 23793804
references: Dis Esophagus. 2004;17 (4):279-84
references: 15569363
references: Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
references: 1593914
references: Ann Surg. 2006 Oct;244(4):481-90
references: 16998356
references: J Am Coll Surg. 2000 May;190(5):553-60; discussion 560-1
references: 10801022
references: Surg Endosc. 2003 Aug;17(8):1193-9
references: 12799881
references: Br J Surg. 2005 May;92(5):648-53
references: 15800954
references: Arch Surg. 1999 Oct;134(10):1069-73
references: 10522848
references: Arch Surg. 2005 Jan;140(1):40-8
references: 15655204
references: World J Surg. 2006 Oct;30(10):1856-63
references: 16983477
references: Surg Endosc. 2006 Mar;20(3):367-79
references: 16424984
references: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009 Apr;19(2):175-7
references: 19390288
references: Am J Med. 1998 Mar;104(3):252-8
references: 9552088
references: BMJ. 1992 Jul 18;305(6846):160-4
references: 1285753
references: J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Oct;213(4):461-8
references: 21715189
references: Surg Endosc. 2003 Jun;17(6):880-5
references: 12618934
references: Med Care. 1995 Apr;33(4 Suppl):AS264-79
references: 7723455