Current status of resident simulation training curricula: pearls and pitfalls.

BACKGROUND: Residency programs are required to incorporate simulation into their training program. Ideally, simulation provides a safe environment for a trainee to be exposed to both common and challenging clinical scenarios. The purpose of this review is to detail the current state of the most commonly used laparoscopic, endoscopic, and robotic surgery simulation programs in general surgery residency education, including resources required for successful implementation and benchmarks for evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Resident and Fellow Task Force (RAFT) Committee performed a literature review using PubMed and training websites. Information regarding the components of the most commonly used laparoscopic, endoscopic, and/or robotic simulation curriculum, including both formal and informal benchmarks for evaluating training competence, were collected. RESULTS: Laparoscopic simulation revolves around the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS). Proficiency-based as well as virtual simulation have been utilized for FLS training curricula. Challenges include less direct translation to the technical complexities that can arise in laparoscopic surgery. Endoscopic simulation focuses on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery. There are virtual reality simulation platforms that can be used for skills assessment and training. Challenges include simulator types and access, as well as structured mentoring and feedback. Robotic simulation training curricula have not been standardized. Simulation includes one primary technology, which can be prohibitive based on cost and requirements for onboarding. CONCLUSIONS: While surgical simulation seems to be a fundamental and integrated part of surgical training, it requires a significant number of resources, which can be daunting for residency training programs. Regardless of the barriers outlined, the need for surgical simulation in laparoscopy, endoscopy, and robotics at surgical education training programs is clear.

The evidence behind robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advancements, the advantage of robotic surgery over other traditional modalities still harbors academic inquiries. We seek to take a recently published high-profile narrative systematic review regarding robotic surgery and add meta-analytic tools to identify further benefits of robotic surgery. METHODS: Data from the published systematic review were extracted and meta-analysis were performed. A fixed-effect model was used when heterogeneity was not significant (Chi2 p ≥ 0.05, I2 ≤ 50%) and a random-effects model was used when heterogeneity was significant (Chi2 p < 0.05, I2 > 50%). Forest plots were generated using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: Robotic surgery had comparable overall complications compared to laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.85), which was significantly lower compared to open surgery (odds ratio 0.68, p = 0.005). Compared to laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery had fewer open conversions (risk difference - 0.0144, p = 0.03), shorter length of stay (mean difference - 0.23 days, p = 0.01), but longer operative time (mean difference 27.98 min, p < 0.00001). Compared to open surgery, robotic surgery had less estimated blood loss (mean difference - 286.8 mL, p = 0.0003) and shorter length of stay (mean difference - 1.69 days, p = 0.001) with longer operative time (mean difference 44.05 min, p = 0.03). For experienced robotic surgeons, there were less overall intraoperative complications (risk difference - 0.02, p = 0.02) and open conversions (risk difference - 0.03, p = 0.04), with equivalent operative duration (mean difference 23.32 min, p = 0.1) compared to more traditional modalities. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery may improve hospital length of stay and open conversion rates, with added benefits in experienced robotic surgeons showing lower overall intraoperative complications and comparable operative times.

Novel "starburst" mesh configuration for paraesophageal and recurrent hiatal hernia repair: comparison with keyhole mesh configuration.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over the use of mesh, its type and configuration in repair of hiatal hernia. We have used biological mesh for large or recurrent hiatal hernias. We have developed a mesh configuration to better enhance the tensile strength of the hiatus by folding the mesh over the edge of the hiatus-entitled the "starburst" configuration. We report our experience with the starburst configuration, comparing it to our results with the keyhole configuration. METHODS: Medical records of all patients undergoing either the keyhole or starburst mesh configuration hiatal hernia repair were reviewed between 2017 and 2021. Data gathered included age, sex, type of hernia (sliding, paraesophageal, or recurrent), fundoplication type (none, Nissen, Toupet, Dor, Collis-Nissen, Collis-Toupet, or magnetic sphincter augmentation [MSA]), 30-day complications, and long-term outcomes (hiatal hernia recurrence, reflux-symptom recurrence, dysphagia, dilations, reoperations). RESULTS: From 7/2017 to 8/2019, 51 cases using the keyhole mesh were completed. Sliding hiatal hernia comprised 4%, paraesophageal hernia (PEH) 64% and recurrent hiatal hernia (RHH) 34% of cases. Distribution of fundoplication type: 2% none, 41% Nissen, 41% Toupet, 8% Dor, 2% Collis-Nissen, and 6% Collis-Toupet. 30-day complication rate 31%. Long-term outcomes: recurrent hiatal hernia 16%, dysphagia 12%, dysphagia requiring dilation(s) 10%, recurrent GERD symptoms 4%, and reoperation 14%. From 10/2020 to 8/2021, 58 cases using the starburst configuration were completed. PEH comprised 60% and RHH 40%. Distribution of fundoplication type: 10% none, 40% Nissen, 43% Toupet, 5% MSA, 2% Collis-Toupet. 30-day complication rate 16%. Long-term outcomes: recurrent hiatal hernia 19%, dysphagia 14%, dilations 5%, recurrent GERD symptoms 9%, and reoperations 3%. CONCLUSION: The starburst mesh configuration compares favorably with the keyhole configuration with respect to postoperative dysphagia, need for esophageal dilation, and GERD symptom recurrence, with similar recurrence rates. We are continuing to further refine this technique and study the long-term outcomes.

Discordance between high-resolution manometry, esophagoscopy and contrast esophagogram in determining landmarks for per-oral endoscopic myotomy in spastic esophageal disorders: a word of caution.

BACKGROUND: Myotomy length for per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is standardized for type I and II achalasia. However, for type III achalasia, jackhammer esophagus, diffuse esophageal spasms and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, there is no standard. Determining myotomy length based on the high-pressure zone found during high-resolution manometry (HRM) and spastic length found during esophagography may be used to determine adequate myotomy length without excess muscle destruction. METHODS: The records of patients who have undergone POEM procedures at our institution had the following data gleaned: age, sex, esophageal spastic diagnosis, length of high-pressure zone and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) position by HRM, length of spastic esophagus by esophagography, position of the z-line by esophagoscopy and length of myotomy performed. Outcomes were assessed based on patient symptomatic improvement and need for re-intervention. RESULTS: 71 patients were evaluated for POEM, with 67 completing POEM. There was an average difference in LES position by HRM and z-line position by esophagoscopy of 3.9 ± 3.0 cm. There was an average difference in high-pressure zone by HRM and spastic length by esophagography of 4.9 ± 3.2 cm. Overall, with a median of 20 months follow-up, 74% achieved long-term symptomatic improvement, with 17 patients requiring re-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance among HRM, esophagography and esophagoscopy can be significant. Caution should be employed with using these methods to determine myotomy length in POEM.

Heller Myotomy for Epiphrenic Diverticula Compared to Nondiverticula Esophageal Motility Disorders, A Single Institution Experience and Appraisal of Patient Characteristics, High-Resolution Manometry and Outcomes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare demographics, symptoms, prior interventions, operation, and outcomes of patients who underwent Heller myotomy for esophageal motility disorders and epiphrenic diverticulectomy with Heller myotomy. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent Heller myotomy for esophageal motility disorders with and without esophageal diverticulectomy over an 80-month period. Primary data points included patient demographics, presenting symptoms, prior intervention, high-resolution manometry, surgery performed with rate of laparoscopic, conversion to open, and open procedures; postoperative complications, and symptom resolution. RESULTS: Over the study period, 308 Heller esophagomyotomy operations were performed on 301 patients. Of these, 277 cases were without epiphrenic diverticula and 31 included diverticula. One patient with an asymptomatic epiphrenic diverticulum did not undergo surgery was included, for a total of 32 diverticula patients. Six patients in the non-diverticula group and 1 in the diverticula group required a second operation for recurrent symptoms or residual diverticulum. The diverticula group was significantly older, had different manometry findings, required more open operations, and had longer length of stay. The diverticula group had a lower frequency of patients with prior interventions, but similar postoperative leaks, higher overall postoperative complications, and no difference in reported symptomatic improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal diverticula patients have a unique profile compare to patients with non-diverticula motility disorders. Operations are more complex, with increased complication rate and a longer length of stay. In spite of this, there is no statistically significant difference in symptomatic outcomes between the groups.

How to choose among fundoplication, magnetic sphincter augmentation or transoral incisionless fundoplication.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To examine current trends and research in nonmedical approaches to the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). RECENT FINDINGS: Long-term studies of GERD patients treated with transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) have found that a large portion of patients resume proton pump inhibitor therapy. In patients with uncomplicated GERD, magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) shows excellent short-term results in both patient satisfaction and physiologic measures of GERD, with fewer postoperative side-effects than fundoplication, although dysphagia can be problematic. SUMMARY: Fundoplication remains the standard of care for patients with GERD complicated by hiatal hernias more than 2 cm, Barrett's esophagus and/or grade C and D erosive esophagitis. For the patient with uncomplicated GERD, MSA appears to be a viable alternative that has greater technical standardization and fewer postoperative side-effects than fundoplication. TIF remains an option for patients with refractory GERD who refuse surgical intervention.

Robotics vs Laparoscopy in Foregut Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Analyzing Hiatal Hernia Repair and Heller Myotomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery remains the mainstay of treating foregut pathologies. Several studies have shown improved outcomes with the robotic approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hiatal hernia repairs (HHR) and Heller myotomy (HM) repairs is needed. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched for studies published between January 2010 and November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Assessed outcomes included intra- and postoperative outcomes. We pooled the dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to report odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs and continuous data to report mean difference and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Twenty-two comparative studies enrolling 196,339 patients were included. Thirteen (13,426 robotic and 168,335 laparoscopic patients) studies assessed HHR outcomes, whereas 9 (2,384 robotic and 12,225 laparoscopic patients) assessed HM outcomes. Robotic HHR had a nonsignificantly shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (mean difference -0.41, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.05), fewer conversions to open (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.49), and lower morbidity rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23). Robotic HM led to significantly fewer esophageal perforations (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.83), reinterventions (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.47) a nonsignificantly shorter LOS (mean difference -0.31, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.00). Both robotic HM and HHR had significantly longer operative times. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic HHR and HM repairs have similar safety profiles and perioperative outcomes. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the 2 methods, given the low-to-moderate quality of included studies.

Examining surgeon stress in robotic and laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic surgery may decrease surgeon stress compared to laparoscopic. To evaluate intraoperative surgeon stress, we measured salivary alpha-amylase and cortisol. We hypothesized robotic elicited lower increases in surgeon salivary amylase and cortisol than laparoscopic. Surgical faculty (n = 7) performing laparoscopic and robotic operations participated. Demographics: age, years in practice, time using laparoscopic vs robotic, comfort level and enthusiasm for each. Operative data included operative time, WRVU (surgical "effort"), resident year. Saliva was collected using passive drool collection system at beginning, middle and end of each case; amylase and cortisol measured using ELISA. Standard values were created using 7-minute exercise (HIIT), collecting saliva pre- and post-workout. Linear regression and Student's t test used for statistical analysis; p values < 0.05 were significant. Ninety-four cases (56 robotic, 38 laparoscopic) were collected (April-October 2022). Standardized change in amylase was 8.4 ± 4.5 (p < 0.001). Among operations, raw maximum amylase change in laparoscopic and robotic was 23.4 ± 11.5 and 22.2 ± 13.4; raw maximum cortisol change was 44.21 ± 46.57 and 53.21 ± 50.36, respectively. Values normalized to individual surgeon HIIT response, WRVU, and operative time, showing 40% decrease in amylase in robotic: 0.095 ± 0.12, vs laparoscopic: 0.164 ± 0.16 (p < 0.02). Normalized change in cortisol was: laparoscopic 0.30 ± 0.44, robotic 0.22 ± 0.4 (p = NS). On linear regression (p < 0.001), surgeons comfortable with complex laparoscopic cases had lower change in normalized amylase (p < 0.01); comfort with complex robotic was not significant. Robotic may be less physiologically stressful, eliciting less increase in salivary amylase than laparoscopic. Comfort with complex laparoscopic decreased stress in robotic, suggesting laparoscopic experience is valuable prior to robotic.

LAPAROSCOPIC ANTIREFLUX SURGERY: ARE OLD QUESTIONS ANSWERED? MESH HERNIOPLASTY.

Hiatal hernias are at high risk of recurrence. Mesh reinforcement after primary approximation of the hiatal crura has been advocated to reduce this risk of recurrence, analogous to mesh repair of abdominal wall hernias. However, the results of such repairs have been mixed, at best. In addition, repairs using some type of mesh have led to significant complications, such as erosion and esophageal stricture. At present, there is no consensus as to (1) whether mesh should be used, (2) indications for use, (3) the type of mesh, and (4) in what configuration. This lack of consensus is likely secondary to the notion that recurrence occurs at the site of crural approximation. We have explored the theory that many, if not most, "recurrences" occur in the anterior and left lateral aspects of the hiatus, normally where the mesh is not placed. We theorized that "recurrence" actually represents progression of the hernia, rather than a true recurrence. This has led to our development of a new mesh configuration to enhance the tensile strength of the hiatus and counteract continued stresses from intra-abdominal pressure.

Effects of Spinal Deformities on Hiatal Hernia Occurrence and Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Spinal deformities such as kyphosis, lordosis, and scoliosis have demonstrated a possible association between these deformities. Our hypothesis is that the presence of spinal deformities will increase the risk of hiatal hernia recurrence after repair. METHODS: The following data was retrospectively gleaned for patients undergoing hiatal hernia repair (1997-2022): age, sex, date of hiatal hernia repair, presence and type of spinal deformity, Cobb angle, type of hiatal hernia and size, type of hiatal hernia repair, recurrence and size, time to recurrence, reoperation, type of reoperation, and time to reoperation. RESULTS: Spinal deformities were present in 15.8% of 546 patients undergoing hiatal hernia repair, with a distribution of 21.8% kyphosis, 2.3% lordosis, 58.6% scoliosis, and 17.2% multiple. There was no difference in sex or age between groups. Spinal deformity patients were more likely to have types III and IV hiatal hernias (52.3% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.02) and larger hernias (median 5 [3-8] vs. 4 [2-6], p = 0.01). There was no difference in access, fundoplication use, or mesh use between groups. However, these patients had a higher recurrence rate (47.7% vs 30.0%, p = 0.001) and a shorter time to recurrence (months) (10.3 [5.6-25.1] vs 19.2 [9.8-51.0], p = 0.02). Cobb angle did not affect recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal deformity patients were more likely to have more complex and larger hiatal hernias. They were at higher risk of hiatal hernia recurrence after repair with shorter times to recurrence. This is a group that requires special attention with additional preoperative counseling and possibly use of surgical adjuncts in repair.

Anatomic Observation of Recurrent Hiatal Hernia: Recurrence or Disease Progression?

BACKGROUND: Recurrence after hiatal hernia repair is common. The causes are uncertain. Our observation is the site of recurrence is primarily the nonsutured or nonreinforced anterior-left lateral portion of the hiatus. Our aim was to assess the distribution of hiatal hernia recurrence location as a basis for developing a theory of recurrence. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent repair of recurrent hiatal hernias from March 2012 to December 2019 were reviewed. Data collected included age, sex, date of operation, location of hiatal hernia recurrence, operative approach, method of hiatal hernia repair, fundoplication performed, need for gastrectomy, and additional procedures. RESULTS: One hundred and eight consecutive patients were studied. The distribution of recurrence locations was as follows: anterior 67%, posterior 12%, and circumferential 21%. Foreshortened esophagus was a contributing factor in 12%. Median time from the original repair to recurrence was 1.5 years (interquartile range 0.9 to 3.75 years) for posterior recurrences, 2.75 years (interquartile range 1.15 to 8.5 years) for circumferential recurrences, and 3.25 years (interquartile range 1.38 to 10 years) for anterior recurrences. Recurrences were repaired in a variety of techniques, depending on the clinical circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Hiatal hernia recurrences due to failure of the crural closure were less common, but early, recurrences. The majority of recurrences were due to stretching of the hiatus anterior and to the left of the esophagus. We theorize that the pathophysiology of late hiatal hernia recurrence is widening of the anterior and left lateral portion of the hiatus secondary to repeated stress from differential pressures that eventually overcomes the tensile strength of the hiatus.

Evolution From the U-shaped to Keyhole-shaped Mesh Configuration in the Repair of Paraesophageal and Recurrent Hiatal Hernia.

BACKGROUND: Paraesophageal hernia (PEH) and recurrent hiatal hernia (RHH) are prone to recurrences. One adjunct used to reduce recurrences is mesh reinforcement. The optimal configuration is yet to be determined. We present our evolution from the U-shaped to the keyhole pattern. METHODS: All patients undergoing PEH/RHH repair with mesh between 2013 and 2019 were reviewed for demographic information, perioperative/intraoperative details, postoperative complications, and recurrences. RESULTS: Of patients undergoing PEH/RHH repair between 2013 and 2019, 138 were repaired using mesh. Of these, 88 were repaired using the U-shaped configuration and 50 using the keyhole configuration. The U-shaped configuration was used for PEH in 72% and RHH in 28%, while the keyhole configuration was used for PEH in 66% and RHH in 34%. Thirty patients suffered postoperative complications, although there was no difference between the groups. Overall, 28 patients in the U-shaped configuration group (31.8%) had a recurrence of their hiatal hernia identified, compared with 7 patients (14.6%) in the keyhole group (P=0.039). The median time to last follow-up was 21 months (range: 1 to 85) in the U-shaped group and 8 months (range: 1 to 23) in the keyhole group. There was no difference in median time to recurrence, postoperative dysphagia, dilations, or strictures. CONCLUSIONS: The keyhole pattern mesh was not associated with a higher complication rate compared with the U-shape pattern. Although this study was not a direct comparison between the configurations, it does suggest that the keyhole pattern may lead to fewer recurrences.

Revisional Procedures for Recurrent Symptoms After Heller Myotomy and Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy.

Background: Achalasia and other esophageal motility disorders are incurable diseases for which palliation and symptom relief are the goals. One of the many ways these diseases are treated is with either a Heller myotomy or, now more commonly, per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Unfortunately, symptoms persistence or recurrence is common. This review presents our current approach to these complex patients. Methods: Review of the literature pertaining to approaches to recurrent or persistent symptoms after myotomy for esophageal motility disorders and elucidation of our multidisciplinary approach to this patient group. Results: There are a myriad of causes of recurrent or persistent symptoms. These include incomplete myotomy, periesophageal scarring, reflux-induced stricture, obstructing fundoplication, functional dysphagia, and end-stage achalasia. Therapeutic options include redo myotomy (either Heller or POEM), botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic, balloon or Savary dilation, adhesiolysis, and fundoplication reversal or esophagectomy. Choice of approach is best done through multidisciplinary consensus. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary approach to patients with persistent and recurrent symptoms after myotomy can best tailor the therapeutic approach based on symptom causation.

Revisional Surgery in Patients with Recurrent Dysphagia after Heller Myotomy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent/persistent symptoms of achalasia occur in 10-20% of individuals after Heller myotomy. The causes and treatment outcomes are ambiguous. Our aim is to assess the causes and outcomes of a multidisciplinary approach to this patient population. METHODS: All patients undergoing revisional operations after a Heller myotomy were reviewed retrospectively. DATA COLLECTED: demographics, date of initial Heller myotomy, preoperative evaluation, etiology of recurrent symptoms, date of revisional operation, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients underwent 37 revisional operations. Operations were tailored based on preoperative multidisciplinary evaluation. Causes of symptoms: periesophageal/perihiatal fibrosis 11 (27%), obstructing fundoplication 11 (27%), incomplete myotomy 8 (20%), progression of disease 9 (22%), and epiphrenic diverticulum 1 (2%). Operations performed: reversal/no creation of fundoplication with or without re-do myotomy 22 (59%), revision/creation of fundoplication with or without myotomy 6 (16%), and esophagectomy 9 (24%). Ten patients in the 37 operations (27%) developed postoperative complications. Of 33 patients for 36 operations with follow-up, 25 patient-operations (69%) resulted in resolution or improved dysphagia. Although there was variation in symptomatic improvement by cause and operation type, none reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: There are several causes of dysphagia after Heller myotomy and a thoughtful evaluation is required. Complication rates are higher than first-time operations. Symptomatic improvement occurs in the majority of cases, but a significant minority will have persistent dysphagia. Although an individualized approach to dysphagia after Heller myotomy may improve symptoms and passage of food, the perception of dysphagia may persist in patients.

Evolution of a Novel Business Leadership Course for General Surgery Chief Residents.

Background General surgery chief residents are typically well equipped for board examinations but poorly trained to deal with the business challenges of surgical practice. We began a business leadership course to better prepare them for their careers. Methods Chief residents were given one-hour lectures with topics that included: Differences between private/academic practice, personal finances, contracts, practice management, legal issues and health law, and time management. Results Initial evaluations revealed that the topics covered and the presentations were well received. Subsequently, the course was moved to earlier in the academic year to prepare them for contract negotiations and then to Sunday nights to decrease interruptions and allow spouse participation. Conclusions The course evolved into a program that the chief residents feel is an important addition to their education. Moving the meetings to a weekend evening improved attendance, decreased interruptions, and allowed participation by spouses and significant others.

Laparoscopic antireflux surgery: are old questions answered? mesh hernioplasty / Cirurgia laparoscópica anti-refluxo: as antigas perguntas são respondidas? hernioplastia com tela

ABSTRACT Hiatal hernias are at high risk of recurrence. Mesh reinforcement after primary approximation of the hiatal crura has been advocated to reduce this risk of recurrence, analogous to mesh repair of abdominal wall hernias. However, the results of such repairs have been mixed, at best. In addition, repairs using some type of mesh have led to significant complications, such as erosion and esophageal stricture. At present, there is no consensus as to (1) whether mesh should be used, (2) indications for use, (3) the type of mesh, and (4) in what configuration. This lack of consensus is likely secondary to the notion that recurrence occurs at the site of crural approximation. We have explored the theory that many, if not most, "recurrences" occur in the anterior and left lateral aspects of the hiatus, normally where the mesh is not placed. We theorized that "recurrence" actually represents progression of the hernia, rather than a true recurrence. This has led to our development of a new mesh configuration to enhance the tensile strength of the hiatus and counteract continued stresses from intra-abdominal pressure.

RESUMO As hérnias hiatais têm alto risco de recidiva. O reforço com tela após a aproximação primária dos pilares hiatais tem sido defendido, para reduzir esse risco de recidiva, análogo ao reparo com tela de hérnias da parede abdominal. No entanto, os resultados de tais reparos foram variados, na melhor das hipóteses. Além disso, os reparos com algum tipo de tela levaram a complicações importantes, como erosão e estenose esofágica. Atualmente, não há consenso sobre 1) se a tela deve ser usada, 2) indicações para uso, 3) o tipo de tela e 4) em qual configuração. Essa falta de consenso provavelmente é secundária à noção de que a recidiva ocorre no local da aproximação crural. Exploramos a teoria de que muitas, se não a maioria, das recidivas ocorrem nas faces anterior e lateral esquerda do hiato, normalmente onde a tela não é colocada. Nós teorizamos que a "recidiva" na verdade representa a progressão da hérnia, em vez de uma verdadeira recidiva, levando ao desenvolvimento de uma nova configuração da tela, para aumentar a resistência à tração do hiato e neutralizar as tensões contínuas da pressão intra-abdominal.