Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1365_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
12 Мб
Скачать
☆
9 Suture vs Mesh Repair PHH
incidence of symptomatic cases of PHH is closely related to the diagnosis of GERD.Risk factors for developing PHH include body mass index (BMI) of >25, age>50 and male sex. Increasing age is not only an independent risk factor for the development of GERD [12], but also increases the incidence of PHH.This is evi­dent in a number of population based studies in various continents [13–16]. There is also a familial preponderance for developing PHH as it confers a 20-fold increased risk of developing PHH in younger siblings of children with this condition [17].
133
9.3 Patient Selection andIndications forPHH Repair
Patient selection and preoperative evaluation are crucial for successful PHH repair especially in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities. Larusson and his team [18] concluded that age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and type of operation are signicant predictive factors in patients undergoing laparo­scopic PHH repair. The investigators advised caution in balancing surgical indica­tions with each patient’s comorbidities, age, symptoms, and potentially life-threatening complications. Asymptomatic large PHH or those with minimal symptoms although uncommon, may be observed over a period of time, a strategy called ‘watchful waiting’ and only after these patients have been counselled regard­ing the risks of incarceration or strangulation which may require surgery in about
1.2% of the cases and carries mortality of 5.4% [19]. These patients, therefore, should be educated about the appropriate work-up in an elective situation in case emergency surgery is required in the future [20]. However, symptomatic PHH in reasonably t patients should be offered an elective surgical option [21]. The most common symptoms include gastroesophageal reux disease (GERD), non-cardiac chest pain, anemia, cardiac arrhythmias, aspiration and shortness of breath. Obstructive symptoms include early satiety, dysphagia and postprandial chest pain.

9.4 Diagnostic Evaluation

Preoperative evaluation for PHH repair requires four main studies which include (1) video esophagogram, a dynamic study which provides information about the overall size and position of the stomach within the hernia; (2) esophagogastroduodenos­copy which can provide information about the mucosa of the stomach and its asso­ciated conditions such as Cameron’s erosions, erosive esophagitis, and Barrett’s esophagus (Fig. 9.2). Additionally, it provides valuable information about Hill’s endoscopic classication of hernia (Fig. 9.3), level of esophagogastric junction, length of the esophagus and importantly to rule out malignancy; (3) high resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) proves valuable in planning the antireux proce­dure which is part and parcel of hernia repair, whilst knowledge of motility patterns help plan the type of wrap created in these patients; and (4) lastly if GERD is a dominant symptom, 24h ambulatory pH study will provide an objective score of
134
Fig. 9.2 Endoscopic view of Barrett’s esophagitis
Fig. 9.3 Endoscopic view Hill’s grade IV PHH
M. Siddaiah-Subramanya et al.
GERD symptoms (Fig.9.4). This baseline investigation can be quite useful should symptoms or problems develop in the future postoperatively. In addition to the above baseline foregut studies, depending on patients symptoms and co- morbidities, other investigations which may be of value in the preoperative period include nuclear medicine gastric emptying studies; chest and abdomen computerized
9 Suture vs Mesh Repair PHH
Fig. 9.4 24-h ambulatory pH study showing objective evidence of reux
135
tomography, pulmonary function tests, cardiac stress testing and echocardiogram in elderly patients with chest pain.
9.5 Basic Principles forLaparoscopic Repair PHH
Many of the principles of standard fundoplication apply to PHH repair, the most important of which is the tension free repair of the crura [22]. The standard approach in the twenty-rst century is laparoscopically via the abdomen although some great results achieved through a transthoracic approach in the twentieth century have to be acknowledged. In a study by Maziak etal. [23], 93% of the patients reported excellent results with a 10year follow up with only 2 recurrences needing reopera­tion. However, this technique has fallen into disrepute because of the painful thora­cotomy incision, insertion of chest tube, prolonged length of hospital stay and difcult reoperations in cases of complications or recurrence.
The four critical steps of the laparoscopic PHH operation include: (1) excision of the hernia sac in its entirety; (2) adequate mediastinal esophageal mobilization; (3) crural repair and (4) addition of fundoplication [24]. Incomplete dissection of the sac increases the risk of intrathoracic migration of the wrap and recurrence. Some studies have made use of this sac to provide cover to the mesh applied over the crura [7]. Similarly, incomplete mobilization of the esophagus to achieve adequate abdominal length of the esophagus (2–5cm) or even the addition of Colles gastroplasty to achieve this maneuver in the case of a short esophagus is a vital step in preventing wrap migra-
136
M. Siddaiah-Subramanya et al.
tion and recurrence postoperatively [9]. The crural repair can be achieved either with sutures or a mesh. Cruroplasty is achieved with non- absorbable sutures, either in an interrupted or a continuous fashion (Fig.9.5). Most of the sutures are placed posterior to the esophagus, although some may need to be placed anteriorly if the crura remains splayed after posterior cruroplasty [8, 25]. It is also common to reduce the intra­abdominal insufation pressure while approximating the crura, especially for the large PHH.Some surgeons use mesh to reinforce the crural repair and the choice of mesh depends on personal preference of the surgeon and the size of the hiatal defect e.g., some choose to use mesh only when the hiatal defect is large or >5cm [26, 27]. Mesh cruroplasty may signicantly increase operating time (15–50cm) as reported in a recent meta-analysis [28], but does not necessarily increase the rate of conversion to open [29]. It is standard to perform a fundoplication following crural closure. The type of fundoplication varies from complete to partial anterior or posterior fundoplication. Most common types are Nissen [30–32] (Fig.9.6) and Toupet [33, 34]. Some sur­geons in addition to fundoplication, suture the wrap to the crura or the stomach to the anterior abdominal wall or use tube gastrostomy to further prevent recurrence [7, 35]. The use of a bougie at the time of crural repair or while performing the wrap seems to be practiced by some surgeons [30, 31, 36]. However, it has fallen out of favor and is not considered as standard practice. This is because it possibly contributes to future recurrence by leaving a larger than required gap following cruroplasty [24].
Fig. 9.5 Laparoscopic view of posterior suture cruroplasty using continuous 0V-Loc™ suture
Fig. 9.6 Laparoscopic view of posterior suture cruroplasty and Nissen fundoplication
ab
cd
9 Suture vs Mesh Repair PHH
137
9.6 Prosthetic Material Versus Sutures forRepair ofPHH
An area of controversy is the use of prosthetic material (mesh) at the esophageal hiatus to provide additional support (Figs.9.7 and 9.8). The majority of surgical mesh are constructed from synthetic materials or animal tissue. Synthetic mesh can be knitted or non-knitted sheet forms and can be absorbable, non-absorbable or a combination of these two. Animal-tissue mesh (bovine or porcine) are either made up of intestine or skin, and are absorbable. Non-absorbable mesh will remain in the body indenitely and is considered a permanent implant. Absorbable mesh will degrade and lose strength over time. It is not intended to provide long-term
Fig. 9.7 Different types of meshes used to reinforce hiatal defect: (a) Covidien Paritex; (b) Polypropylene mesh with silicone catheter; (c) MicroVal; (d) Gore Bio-A tissue reinforcement
Fig. 9.8 Large hiatus hernia reinforced with Gore Bio-A mesh
138
M. Siddaiah-Subramanya et al.
reinforcement to the repair site. As the material degrades, new tissue growth is intended to provide strength to the repair. According to DeMeester [24] the char­acteristics of an ideal mesh for use at the hiatus include: (1) it should be absorbable with no tendency to erode; (2) easy to use in terms of introducing, positioning, and xating; (3) provide long-term, effective strengthening of the crural closure and reduce the risk of a recurrent hernia, and (4) it should not preclude a safe reopera­tion if necessary.
In order to improve upon the high recurrence rate of suture cruroplasty, Carlson and his team, in 1999 [30], reported the very rst randomized controlled trial (RCT) of laparoscopic prosthetic reinforcement of large hiatal hernia. Since then, many comparative trials [7–9, 25–27, 31–33, 36–41] and meta-analyses and systematic reviews [28, 42, 43] comparing suture cruroplasty versus mesh repair of large PHH have been published, analyzing various aspects of these two approaches (Table9.1). Amongst the RCTs, two studies have made use of non-absorbable PTFE meshes [30, 31] and one of prolene mesh [32], while two others have used absorbable
®
(Surgisis
Cook Ireland) meshes with varying results [9, 41]. Similarly, a diverse range of meshes have been used in various other prospective and retrospective stud­ies (Table9.1). These include vicryl [26], ultrapro [26] and acellular dermal matrix [40]. These meshes have been applied for crural closure in various congurations which include a keyhole or circular conguration [31, 34] where the mesh sur­rounds the abdominal part of the esophagus, while others have used the mesh in “U” [33, 36], square or rectangular arrangements [7, 39] over the crura posterior to the esophagus. Some have even used the mesh as a bridge when the crural pillars could not be opposed [36, 38]. Although the majority of the surgeons have used staples [27, 30, 36], and tacks [25] to secure the mesh, some have utilized sutures
®
which includes Ethibond
[26, 27, 34, 36, 39], polyster [30], prolene [7], silk [40] or polybutester (V-Loc™) for either cruroplasty or/and to secure the mesh. Lastly brin glue has also been increasingly used for mesh xation to the crura in recent days [44].

9.7 Mesh Complications

The signicant complications related to the use of mesh in hiatal hernia surgery, include mesh infection, mesh erosion [45, 46], adhesions and brosis, migration of the wrap into the thoracic cavity (recurrence) and stulae making revisional surgery very challenging even in the hands of the most experienced surgeons. Mesh related complications have been reported to range from 1.3 to 20% [47]. However, a recent systematic review has contradicted such a high rate [43]. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis conrms comparable low complication rates between suture and mesh cruroplasty in PHH repair [28]. Yet another systematic review has shown a very low complication rate of only 1.9% for the mesh group [42] dispelling the long held belief that mesh repair has a higher complication rate especially over a long period of time. Non-absorbable mesh related
9 Suture vs Mesh Repair PHH
Mesh group (material/xation/
orientation)n n
Suture
Hiatal
defect
Years
(mean with
range or
SD) (cm)
PTFE/staples/keyhole
absorbable
PTFE/staples/keyhole
absorbable
Surgisis/NA/NA
Prolene/sutured/posterior
absorbable
absorbable
Any Non
48.3
(22–71)
Surgisis/Timesh/Staples/
posterior
Non
absorbable
Any
(>50%
stomach
in the
chest)
68
(norange)
139
(continued)
Patients Follow-up Age Type of material
Table 9.1 Salient features of various comparative studies
Suture Mesh Total group Suture Mesh
Years
(mean with
range or
Months
(mean or
median with
Single/
63 (42–81) 58 (36–92) >8 Non
NA NA >8 Non
SD)
(mean with
range or SD)
multicenter
Author/year
(onlyrange)
Single 15 16 12–36
Randomized controlled studies
Carlson etal.
(1999) [30]
SD)
Multi 36 36 39.6±20.4
Frantzides etal.
Multi 50 50 12 (mean) 48.7
Granderath etal.
(2002) [31]
64±13 67±11 Any Non
(24–73)
suture group
and 60±9.6
for mesh
Multi 57 51 58±9.6 for
Oelschlager etal.
(2005/2011) [9]
(2005) [32]
group
(median
(norange)
with SD)
Multi 43 83 12 (mean) 67.8
Watson etal.
(2015) [41]
140
Mesh group (material/xation/
orientation)n n
shaped
sutured/ posterior “U” shaped
M. Siddaiah-Subramanya et al.
PTFE/prolene/NA/posterior
Gortex/prolene/marlex/NA/NA
“U” shaped
Hiatal
defect
Years
(mean with
Years
(mean with
Months
(mean or
Patients Follow-up Age Type of material
Suture Mesh Total group Suture Mesh
Suture
range or
SD) (cm)
range or
SD)
71 (45–92) 72 (61–85) Large Ethibond Prolene/stapled/posterior “U”
median with
range or SD)
3–10 Silk Acellular dermal matrix/
57.8
(34–75)
52.3
(33–75)
with no
(mean with
range)
range)
Ethibond Vicryl/ultrapro/surgisis/NA/NA
mesh
NA NA >5 for
with no
group
range)
absorbable
Large Non
61
(norange)
65
(norange)
(mean with
range)
absorbable
NA NA >5 Non
(mean with
range)
Table 9.1 (continued)
Single/
multicenter
Prospective studies
Author/year
(2003) [36]
Single 22 22 6.7 (mean
Ringley etal.
Single 37 14 46 (18–89)
Leeder etal.
Single 58 23 36 (mean
Braghetto etal.
(2006) [40]
[37]
Single 14 61 43 (28–68)
Morino etal.
(2006) [38]
Single 12 12 37 (24–48)
Retrospective studies
(2010) [26]
Hui etal. (2001)
9 Suture vs Mesh Repair PHH
Prolene/PTFE/tacks/keyhole/
Goretex/prolene/sutured/
posterior buttery shaped
keyhole
posterior “U”
PTFE/surgisis/NA/ posterior
Biosynthetic/suture/ posterior
141
“U” shaped
absorbable
> 3cm Prolene Prolene/staples/ posterior
47.5
47.6
NA NA Large Ethibond Surgipro/vypro/ staples/
65 (59–67) 64 (59–69) Large Non
range)
(mean)
(mean with
absorbable
(no range)
NA NA Any Non
(no range)
(no range)
(mean)
absorbable
Any Ethibond Biomesh/sutured/posterior
64.5
(52–76)
NA NA Any Non
61.8
(52–72)
(mean)
(mean)
>5 Non
65.9
65.8
(98–177)
(median)
absorbable
(55–75)
(52–79)
range)
(median)
Single 40 16 52 (9–117)
Muller-Stich
etal. (2006) [27]
Single 48 20 60
Single 93 204 94 (51–135)
Single 19 35 71 (39–97)
Gouvas etal.
Soricelli etal.
Zaninotto etal.
(2009) [7]
(2007) [34]
(2011) [25]
Single 60 25 155
Single 33 56 11 (4–15)
Dallemagne et al.
Goers etal.
(2011) [8]
(2011) [39]
Single 43 41 24 (no
Asti etal. (2016)
[33]
142
complications occur at an average of 17.3months (range 1–120) postoperatively and includes dysphagia, heartburn, chest pain, weight loss, epigastric pain and fever from sepsis. Once again it is important to emphasize that these complica­tions are rare [47] (Table9.2).
M. Siddaiah-Subramanya et al.

9.7.1 Mesh Erosion

Mesh erosion leading to peritonitis, mediastinitis and death may have been observed in non-absorbable mesh [48, 49], but has not been seen in the biological absorbable mesh. These types of complications, although rare, will have signi­cant impact on the patient’s quality of life and may require major intervention such as esophageal resection [25]. Mesh erosion is rare and a recent systematic review reported this to be 0.2% [29]. Furthermore, two large studies which used non­absorbable mesh to close the hiatal defect have not shown any mesh complications [31, 50]. The rst comparative study to report on biological mesh has not seen any mesh related complications with a follow up of just over 6months [40]. Since then a few more studies including two RCTs have reported on the long term follow-up of biologic meshes [9, 41]. The longest follow up of biologic mesh was reported by Oelschlager etal. [9] with a mean follow up of 59 (range 40–78) months with no mesh complications. The biggest disadvantage of using biologic mesh seems to be a high recurrence rate of up to 54% over prolonged follow up as reported in the Seattle study [9].

9.7.2 Mesh Related Fibrosis

Extensive brosis from use of mesh is probably related to the type of mesh (non­absorbable), its conguration and the position with respect to the esophagus. A recent systematic review estimates it to be around 0.5% [29]. Non-absorbable mesh tends to contract far more than biological mesh leading to brosis and possibly esophageal stenosis at the site of insertion. Another reason why biologic mesh causes less com­plication is because they are less adhesive compared to non- absorbable mesh [29]. Moreover, it is also ill advised to encircle the abdominal esophagus in a circular or keyhole fashion using non-absorable mesh which may lead to esophageal stenosis and erosion of the mesh through the esophagus from mesh contraction. To alleviate this issue some surgeons suggest performing relaxation incisions on the diaphragm which are then reinforced with mesh which would be secured away from the esopha­gus and stomach. This will prevent possible mesh erosion into these visceras as the ensuing brosis will occur away from these hollow organs eliminating the risk of dysphagia [51, 52]. The repair of recurrent hiatus hernia in the presence of previous non-absorbable mesh repair, possess yet another challenge due to the extensive adhe­sions and brosis in the hiatal area. This makes the crura rigid and bringing them