Risk of De Novo Barrett's Esophagus Post Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies with Long-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures worldwide. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a major concern in patients undergoing SG and is a risk factor for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the incidence of and analyze predictive factors for post-SG BE. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in April 2024, for studies reporting on incidence of BE, erosive esophagitis (EE), and hiatal hernia (HH) post-SG. Primary outcomes were post-SG pooled rates of de novo BE, EE, GERD symptoms, proton pump inhibitor use, and HH. Meta-regression analysis was performed to assess if patient and post-SG factors influenced the rates of post-SG BE. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 2046 patients (79% females) were included. Mean age was 42.2 years (standard deviation, 11.1) and follow-up ranged from 2 to 11.4 years. The pooled rate of de novo BE post-SG was 5.6% (confidence interval, 3.5-8.8). Significantly higher pooled rates of EE (risk ratio [RR], 3.37], HH (RR, 2.09), GER/GERD symptoms (RR, 3.32), and proton pump inhibitor use (RR, 3.65) were found among patients post-SG. GER/GERD symptoms post-SG positively influenced the pooled BE rates, whereas age, sex, body mass index, post-SG EE, and HH did not. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that SG results in a significantly increased risk of de novo BE and higher rates of EE, proton pump inhibitor use, and HH. Our findings suggest that clinicians should routinely screen patients with SG for BE and future surveillance intervals should be followed as per societal guidelines.

Forgoing Preoperative Manometry for Minimally Invasive Hiatal Hernia Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Hiatal hernia commonly occurs in adults. Although most patients are asymptomatic, some experience reflux symptoms or dysphagia. These patients are frequently managed with acid suppression and lifestyle changes. However, medical management does not provide durable relief for some patients; therefore, surgical repair is considered. Routine preoperative investigations include esophagoscopy, esophagography, and manometry. We investigated the role of preoperative motility studies for the management of these patients when partial fundoplication is planned. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 185 patients who underwent elective minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair with partial fundoplication between 2014 and 2018. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether a preoperative motility study was performed. The primary outcomes were postoperative dysphagia, complications, postoperative interventions, and use of proton pump inhibitors. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients underwent preoperative manometry and 86 did not. The lack of preoperative manometry was not associated with increased postoperative morbidity, including leak rate, readmission, and 30-d mortality. The postoperative dysphagia rates of the manometry and nonmanometry groups were 5% (5/99 patients) and 7% (6/86 patients) (P = 0.80), respectively. Furthermore, seven of 99 (7%) patients in the manometry group and 10 of 86 (12%) (P = 0.42) patients in the nonmanometry group underwent interventions, mainly endoscopic dilation, postoperatively owing to symptom recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Forgoing preoperative manometry was not associated with significant adverse outcomes after minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair. Although manometry is reasonable to perform, it should not be considered a mandatory part of the preoperative assessment when partial fundoplication is planned.

High-resolution 3-dimensional tomography may be a useful tool for understanding the anatomy of hiatal hernias and surgical planning of patients eligible for laparoscopic or robotic antireflux surgery.

BACKGROUND: 3D computed tomography (CT) has been seldom used for the evaluation of hiatal hernias (HH) in surgical patients. This study aims to describe the 3D CT findings in candidates for laparoscopic or robotic antireflux surgery or HH repair and compare them with other tests. METHODS: Thirty patients with HH and/or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who were candidates for surgical treatment and underwent high-resolution CT were recruited. The variables studied were distance from the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) to the hiatus; total gastric volume and herniated gastric volume, percentage of herniated volume in relation to the total gastric volume; diameters and area of the esophageal hiatus. RESULTS: HH was diagnosed with CT in 21 (70%) patients. There was no correlation between the distance EGJ-hiatus and the herniated gastric volume. There was a statistically significant correlation between the distance from the EGJ to the hiatus and the area of the esophageal hiatus of the diaphragm. There was correlation between tomographic and endoscopic findings for the presence and size of HH. HH was diagnosed with manometry in 9 (50%) patients. There was no correlation between tomographic and manometric findings for the diagnosis of HH and between hiatal area and lower esophageal sphincter basal pressure. There was no correlation between any parameter and DeMeester score. CONCLUSIONS: The anatomy of HH and the hiatus can be well defined by 3D CT. The EGJ-hiatus distance may be equally measured by 3D CT or upper digestive endoscopy. DeMeester score did not correlate with any anatomical parameter.

Hiatal hernia reporting: time to remove subjectivity?

INTRODUCTION: The size of a hiatal hernia (HH) is a key determinant of the approach for surgical repair. However, endoscopists will often utilize subjective terms, such as "small," "medium," and "large," without any standardized objective correlations. The aim of this study was to identify HHs described using objective axial length measurements versus subjective size allocations and compare them to their corresponding manometry and barium swallow studies. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted on 93 patients diagnosed endoscopically with HHs between 2017 and 2021 at Newton-Wellesley Hospital. Information was collected regarding their HH subjective size assessment, axial length measurement (cm), manometry results, and barium swallow readings. Linear regression models were used to analyze the correlation between the objective endoscopic axial length measurements and manometry measurements. Ordered logistic regression models were used to correlate the ordinal endoscopic and barium swallow subjective size allocations with the continuous axial length measurements and manometry measurements. RESULTS: Of the 93 endoscopy reports, 42 included a subjective size estimate, 38 had axial length measurement, and 12 gave both. Of the 34 barium swallow reads, only one gave an objective HH size measurement. Axial length measurements were significantly correlated with the manometry measurements (R2 = 0.0957, p = 0.049). The endoscopic subjective size estimates were also closely related to the manometry measurements (R2 = 0.0543, p = 0.0164). Conversely, the subjective size estimates from barium swallow reads were not significantly correlated with the endoscopic axial length measurements (R2 = 0.0143, p = 0.366), endoscopic subjective size estimates (R2 = 0.0481, p = 0.0986), or the manometry measurements (R2 = 0.0418, p = 0.0738). Mesh placement was significantly correlated to pre-operative endoscopic axial length measurement (p = 0.0001), endoscopic subjective size estimate (p = 0.0301), and barium swallow read (p = 0.0211). However, mesh placement was not significantly correlated with pre-operative manometry measurements (0.2227). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic subjective size allocations and objective axial length measurements are associated with pre-operative objective measurements and intra-operative decisions, suggesting both can be used to guide clinical decision making. However, including axial length measurements in endoscopy reports can improve outcomes reporting.

SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of hiatal hernias.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia (HH) is a common condition. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of HH. METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted for four key questions regarding the treatment of HH in adults: surgical treatment of asymptomatic HH versus surveillance; use of mesh versus no mesh; performing a fundoplication versus no fundoplication; and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus redo fundoplication for recurrent HH. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology by subject experts. When the evidence was insufficient to base recommendations on, expert opinion was utilized instead. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The panel provided one conditional recommendation and two expert opinions for adults with HH. The panel suggested routinely performing a fundoplication in the repair of HH, though this was based on low certainty evidence. There was insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations regarding surgical repair of asymptomatic HH or conversion to RYGB in recurrent HH, and therefore, only expert opinions were offered. The panel suggested that select asymptomatic patients may be offered surgical repair, with criteria outlined. Similarly, it suggested that conversion to RYGB for management of recurrent HH may be appropriate in certain patients and again described criteria. The evidence for the routine use of mesh in HH repair was equivocal and the panel deferred making a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of HH and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and consideration of patient values to optimize outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs will improve the evidence base and may allow for stronger recommendations in future evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of HH.

Coated poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (Phasix ST™) mesh is safe and effective for hiatal hernia repair: our institutional experience and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) is a bioabsorbable mesh with a non-adhesive coating on one side that is being used to reinforce the hiatus during hiatal hernia repair; however, there is limited data regarding its use. The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes after hiatal hernia repair using this mesh at our institution and through a review of the literature. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved prospective database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing hiatal hernia repair from April 2018 to December 2022. A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate outcomes using P4HB coated mesh. RESULTS: In our institutional cohort, there were 230 patients (59 males; 171 females) with a mean follow-up of 20 ± 14.6 months. No mesh-related complications occurred. Hernia recurrence was diagnosed in 11 patients (4.8%) with a median time to recurrence of 16 months. In the systematic review, 4 studies with 221 patients (76 males; 145 females) were included. Median follow-up ranged from 12 to 27 months. Recurrence rate in these studies was reported from 0 to 8.8%, with a total of 12 recurrences identified. Like our institutional cohort, no mesh-related complications were reported. After our recurrences were combined with those from the systematic review, a total of 23 recurrences were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis revealed a low recurrence rate following hiatal hernia repair with P4HB coated mesh (incidence rate per 100 person-years, 2.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.60, 4.04). CONCLUSION: P4HB coated mesh is safe and effective for hiatal hernia repairs.

Cruroplasty with or without mesh? A systematic literature review with a novel time-organized proportion meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes with the use of non-absorbable mesh (NAM) for inguinal hernia repairs led to its rapid adoption for hiatal hernia (HH) repairs; however, feared complications occurred, and the trend shifted toward using absorbable mesh (AM). We aimed to analyze the literature assessing objective HH recurrence rates after primary laparoscopic cruroplasty with or without the use of different mesh types. METHODS: A systematic literature review with both pairwise and time-organized proportion meta-analyses of articles published between January 1993 and September 2022 was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Taylor & Francis databases to identify relevant studies comparing groups undergoing cruroplasty with suture repair (SR) alone, AM, NAM, or partially absorbable mesh (PAM). Studies documenting an objective follow-up ≥ 6 months were included. The primary outcome was the HH recurrence rate confirmed by barium esophagram or upper GI endoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 6 randomized clinical trials, 25 retrospectives studies, and 3 prospective cohort studies. A total of 2170 subjects underwent laparoscopic HH repair and completed an objective follow-up ≥ 6 months after surgery; the objective recurrence rate was 20.8% (99/477) at a mean follow-up of 25.8 ± 16.4 months for the SR group, 20.6% (244/1187) at 28.1 ± 13.8 months for the AM group, 13.7% (65/475) at 30.8 ± 15.3 months for the NAM group, and 0% (0/31) at 32.5 ± 13.5 months for the PAM group. However, the pairwise meta-analysis revealed that overall mesh use was not superior to SR in preventing long-term HH recurrence. CONCLUSION: The use of AM does not appear to reduce HH recurrence compared to SR alone. Although the data favors NAM to decrease objective HH recurrence in the mid-term, the long-term (≥ 48 months) recurrence rate was similar with or without any type of mesh.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy is an effective treatment for achalasia combined with hiatal hernia.

PURPOSE: To explore the feasibility of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in patients with achalasia and hiatal hernia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 2136 patients with achalasia between January 2016 and December 2022. Patients with achalasia and hiatal hernia were assigned into study group, and matched patients with achalasia but no hiatal hernia were assigned into control group. The preoperative baseline information, procedure-related adverse events (AEs) and follow-up data were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Hiatal hernia was identified in 56/1564 (3.6%) patients with achalasia. All of these patients underwent POEM with success. The preoperative baseline characteristics were similar between the study and control group. The study group presented with a similar rate of mucosal injury (12.5% vs 16.1, P = 0.589), pneumothorax (3.6% vs 1.8%, P = 1.000), pleural effusion (8.9% vs 12.5%, P = 0.541) and major AEs (1.8% vs 1.8%, P = 1.000) compared with the control group. As for the follow-up data, no significant differences were observed in clinical success (96.4% vs 92.9%, P = 0.679; 93.6% vs 94.0%, P = 1.000; 86.5% vs 91.4%, P = 0.711) clinical reflux (25.0% vs 19.6%, P = 0.496; 31.9% vs 26.0%, P = 0.521; 35.1% vs 31.4%, P = 0.739) and proton pump inhibitor usage (17.9% vs 16.1%, P = 0.801; 29.8% vs 24.0%, P = 0.520; 32.4% vs 25.7%, P = 0.531) between the study group and control group at 1-year, 2-year and 3-year follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is a safe and effective treatment for achalasia combined with hiatal hernia.

Lessons learned from revision procedures: a case series pleading for reinforcement of the anterior hiatus in recurrent hiatal hernia.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal Hernia (HH) is a common structural defect of the diaphragm. Laparoscopic repair with suturing of the hiatal pillars followed by fundoplication has become standard practice. In an attempt to lower HH recurrence rates, mesh reinforcement, commonly located at the posterior site of the esophageal hiatus, has been used. However, effectiveness of posterior mesh augmentation is still up to debate. There is a lack of understanding of the mechanism of recurrence requiring further investigation. We investigated the anatomic location of HH recurrences in an attempt to assess why HH recurrence rates remain high despite various attempts with mesh reinforcement. METHODS: A retrospective case series of prospectively collected data from patients with hiatal hernia repair between 2012 and 2020 was performed. In total, 54 patients with a recurrent hiatal hernia operation were included in the study. Video clips from the revision procedure were analyzed by a surgical registrar and senior surgeon to assess the anatomic location of recurrent HH. For the assessment, the esophageal hiatus was divided into four equal quadrants. Additionally, patient demographics, hiatal hernia characteristics, and operation details were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: 54 patients were included. The median time between primary repair and revision procedure was 25 months (IQR 13-95, range 0-250). The left-anterior quadrant was involved in 43 patients (80%), the right-anterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), the left-posterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), and the right-posterior quadrant in 10 patients (19%). CONCLUSION: In this study, hiatal hernia recurrences occured most commonly at the left-anterior quadrant of the hiatus, however, posterior recurrences were not uncommon. Based on our results, we hypothesize that both posterior and anterior hiatal reinforcement might be a suitable solution to lower the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia. A randomized controlled trial using a circular, bio-absorbable mesh has been initiated to test our hypothesis.

Paraesophageal hernia recurrence following repair: making the case for reoperative surgery in a propensity-matched cohort.

BACKGROUND: Paraesophageal hernia repairs (PEHRs) have high rates of radiographic recurrence, with some patients requiring repeat operation. This study characterizes patients who underwent PEHR to identify the factors associated with postoperative symptom improvement and radiographic recurrence. We furthermore use propensity score matching to compare patients undergoing initial and reoperative PEHR to identify the factors predictive of recurrence or need for reoperation. METHODS: After IRB approval, patients who underwent PEHR at a tertiary care center between January 2018 and December 2022 were identified. Patient characteristics, preoperative imaging, operative findings, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. A computational generalization of inverse propensity score weight was then used to construct populations of initial and redo PEHR patients with similar covariate distributions. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients underwent PEHR (78.7% female, mean age 65.4 ± 12.3 years). Most repairs were performed with crural closure (81.4%) and fundoplication (71.7%) with 14.2% utilizing mesh. Postoperatively, 76.5% of patients had subjective symptom improvement and of 157 patients with postoperative imaging, 52.9% had evidence of radiographic recurrence at a mean follow-up of 10.4 ± 13.6 months. Only 4.9% of patients required a redo operation. Hernia type, crural closure, fundoplication, and mesh usage were not predictors of radiographic recurrence or symptom improvement (P > 0.05). Propensity weight score analysis of 50 redo PEHRs compared to a matched cohort of 194 initial operations revealed lower rates of postoperative symptom improvement (P < 0.05) but no differences in need for revision, complication rates, ED visits, or readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Most PEHR patients have symptomatic improvement with minimal complications and reoperations despite frequent radiographic recurrence. Hernia type, crural closure, fundoplication, and mesh usage were not significantly associated with recurrence or symptom improvement. Compared to initial PEHR, reoperative PEHRs had lower rates of symptom improvement but similar rates of recurrence, complications, and need for reoperation.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a NSQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repairs have yielded conflicting results. We sought to analyze early postoperative complications between these approaches using a newly available NSQIP variable indicating robot use. METHODS: We queried the 2022 ACS NSQIP database for adult patients undergoing elective minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair. Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare cohort characteristics. Logistic, linear, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to compare perioperative outcomes between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. RESULTS: We identified 4345 patients who underwent repair using a laparoscopic (2778 patients; 63.9%) or robotic (1567 patients; 36.1%) approach. Most (73.1%) were female, and the median age was 65 (IQR 55, 73). Patients who underwent robotic repair were younger (median age 64 vs 66), had a slightly higher body mass index (BMI; median 30.2 vs 29.9), and were more likely to have hypertension (53.0% vs 48.5%), all p < 0.01. On unadjusted analysis the robotic approach was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (0.0% vs 0.4%, p < 0.01). After adjusting for age, gender, race, BMI, and hypertension, the robotic approach was not associated with increased major complications (5.6% vs 5.1%, AOR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86, 1.49), minor complications (0.9% vs 1.5%, AOR 1.20, 95% CI 0.74, 1.93), or unplanned readmission (6.5% vs 5.5%, AHR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89, 1.54), all p ≥ 0.26. After adjusting for age and hypertension, the robotic cohort had an increased risk of myocardial infarction (AOR 2.53, 95% CI 1.01, 6.33, p = 0.048) and pulmonary embolism (AOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.17, 6.49, p = 0.02), although none resulted in 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repairs had similar overall complication and readmission rates. The robotic cohort had an increased risk of myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism but no 30-day mortality. Current data support the use of both robotic and laparoscopic approaches for paraesophageal hernia repair.

Full esophageal mobilization during hiatal hernia repair with concomitant sleeve gastrectomy improves postoperative reflux symptoms for patients with preexisting reflux.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia repair (HHR) performed concurrently with vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) has been shown to improve postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, data on the optimal extent of esophageal mobilization during repair are lacking. Mobilization techniques for HHR during VSG include partial (PM) or full (FM) mobilization of the esophagus. We hypothesize that patients who undergo full mobilization will be less likely to develop postoperative reflux. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of all patients who underwent a VSG with a HHR between 2014 and 2021 was conducted. The primary outcome was postoperative reflux symptoms defined by diagnosis in the medical record, utilization of anti-reflux medications, and GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) scores obtained via patient surveys. RESULTS: There were 190 patients included with 80 patients (42.1%) undergoing PM and 110 (57.9%) undergoing FM. Rates of preoperative reflux were similar between the two groups (47.5% vs. 51.8%; p = 0.55). During the GERD-HRQL survey, there were 114 patients (60.0%) contacted with a participation rate of 91.2% (104 patients). Patients with preoperative reflux who underwent PM were found to have a higher rate of reported postoperative reflux (90.0% vs. 62.5%; p = 0.03) and higher GERD-HRQL scores (16.40 ± 9.95 vs. 10.84 ± 9.01; p = 0.04). Patients without preoperative reflux did not have a significant difference in reported reflux (55.0% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.82) or GERD-HRQL scores (12.35 ± 14.14 vs. 9.93 ± 9.46; p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Our study found that postoperative GERD was higher in patients with preexisting reflux who underwent partial esophageal mobilization during concurrent hiatal hernia repair with vertical sleeve gastrectomy. In patients without preoperative GERD, our data suggest that postoperative reflux symptoms are not dependent on the extent of esophageal mobilization during hiatal hernia repair with vertical sleeve gastrectomy.

Fundoplication at the time of paraesophageal hernia repair does not decrease the rate of hernia recurrence or postoperative reflux.

BACKGROUND: Fundoplication at the time of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair is thought to help prevent the development or persistence of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) and might also prevent hernia recurrence. However, the published data is not strong enough to definitively recommend this approach. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness and complications of a fundoplication at the time of paraesophageal hernia repair. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent a paraesophageal hernia repair at a single institution over a 14 year period from 2010 to 2023. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts, those who underwent fundoplication at the time of PEH repair and those who did not. Rates of PEH recurrence, rates of reoperation for a recurrent PEH, postoperative dysphagia rates, and postoperative GERD rates were then compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: There were 1,155 patients included in the study. There were 610 (53%) patients who underwent PEH repair with fundoplication and 545 (47%) who did not undergo a fundoplication. 113 (19%) of the patients who underwent fundoplication developed a hernia recurrence compared to 67 (12%) who had a PEH repair alone (p = 0.004). However, each cohort had similar rates of requiring reoperation (p = 0.4). Inclusion of a fundoplication did lead to higher rates of postoperative dysphagia > 30 days postoperatively, 12% vs 7% (p = 0.002), but did not lead to decreased rates of symptomatic GERD postoperatively, 7% with a fundoplication and 7% without (p = 0.93). CONCLUSION: In this present study, fundoplication at the time of PEH repair did not prevent hernia recurrence, need for reoperation, or decrease postoperative GERD rates but does increase postoperative dysphagia. While there are definite indications for fundoplication at the time of PEH repair (i.e., type 1 hernia), these data do not support the routine use of fundoplication during PEH repair with a normal gastroesophageal flap valve intraoperatively.

Surgeon variability in repair of hiatal hernia at the time of bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia (HH) is estimated to affect between 20 and 50% of patients undergoing bariatric surgery. However, there is no consensus regarding the preoperative assessment and intraoperative repair of HH. The aim of this study was to evaluate the variation in surgeon assessment and repair of HH during bariatric surgery across a multi-hospital healthcare system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using data obtained from the metabolic and bariatric accreditation quality improvement program (MBSAQIP) and institutional medical records. All adult patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were included. Preoperative assessment of HH was defined as either EGD or upper GI/Esophagram (UGI) within one year of surgery. Surgeons were evaluated individually and by hospital. Chi-square analysis and ANOVA were performed. RESULTS: From January 2018 to February 2023, 3,487 bariatric surgeries were performed across 4 hospitals and 11 surgeons (2481 SG and 1006 RYGB). HH were concurrently repaired during 24% of operations. The rate of HH repair in SG was 25 and 22% in RYGB (p = 0.06). Preoperatively, 41% of patients underwent EGD and 23% had an UGI. HH was diagnosed in 22% of EGDs. Patients who underwent preoperative EGD had higher rates of HH repair than those without a preop EGD (33% vs. 17%; p < 0.001). The rate of preoperative EGD utilization by surgeon varied significantly from 3 to 92% (p < 0.001) as did HH repair rates between surgeons (range 8-57%; p < 0.001). Even among patients with a preoperatively diagnosed HH, the repair rate ranged 20-91% between individual surgeons (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within a healthcare system there was significant heterogeneity in approach to assessment and repair of HH during bariatric surgery. This appears to be mediated by multiple factors, including utilization of preoperative studies, individual surgeon differences, and differences between hospitals.

Patients report significant improvement in quality of life following hiatal hernia repair-despite recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia (HH) repairs have been associated with high recurrence rates. This study aimed to investigate if changes in patient's self-reported GERD health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores over time are associated with long-term surgical outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted on all patients who had laparoscopic or robotic HH repairs between 2018 and 2022 at a tertiary care center. Information was collected regarding initial BMI, endoscopic HH measurement, surgery, and pre- and post-operative HRQL scores. Repeat imaging at least a year following surgical repair was then evaluated for any evidence of recurrence. Paired t tests were used to compare pre- and post-operative HRQL scores. Wilcoxon ranked-sum tests were used to compare the HRQL scores between the recurrence cohort and non-recurrence cohorts at different time points. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent HH repairs and had pre- and post-operative HRQL scores. Mesh was used in 23 repairs (18.25%). 42 patients had recorded HH recurrences (33.3%), 35 had no evidence of recurrence (27.7%), and 49 patients (38.9%) had no follow-up imaging. The average pre-operative QOL score was 24.99 (SD ± 14.95) and significantly improved to 5.63 (SD ± 8.51) at 2-week post-op (p < 0.0001). That improvement was sustained at 1-year post-op (mean 7.86, SD ± 8.26, p < 0.0001). The average time between the initial operation and recurrence was 2.1 years (SD ± 1.10). Recurrence was significantly less likely with mesh repairs (p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in QOL scores at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year postoperatively between the cohorts (p = NS). CONCLUSION: Patients had significant long-term improvement in their HRQL scores after surgical HH repair despite recurrences. The need to re-intervene in patients with HH recurrence should be based on their QOL scores and not necessarily based on established recurrence.

Concomitant hiatal hernia repair with transoral incisionless fundoplication for the treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is safe and effective in select patients with hiatal hernias ≤ 2 cm with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). For patients with hiatal hernias > 2 cm, concomitant hiatal hernia (HH) repair with TIF (cTIF) is offered as an alternative to conventional anti-reflux surgery (ARS). Yet, data on this approach is limited. Through a comprehensive systematic review, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cTIF for managing refractory GERD in patients with hernias > 2 cm. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating cTIF outcomes from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases up to February 14, 2024. Primary outcomes included complete cessation of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Secondary outcomes included objective GERD assessment, adverse events, and treatment-related side effects. Pooled analysis was employed wherever feasible. RESULTS: Seven observational studies (306 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Five were retrospective cohort studies and two were prospective observational studies. The median rate of discontinuation of PPIs was 73.8% (range 56.4-94.4%). Significant improvements were observed in disease-specific, validated GERD questionnaires. The median rate for complications was 4.4% (range 0-7.9%), and the 30-day readmission rate had a median of 3.3% (range 0-5.3%). The incidence of dysphagia was 11 out of 164 patients, with a median of 5.3% (range 0-8.3%), while the incidence of gas bloating was 15 out of 127 patients, with a median of 6.9% (range 0-13.8%). CONCLUSION: Current data on cTIF suggests a promising alternative to ARS with comparable short-term efficacy and safety profile for managing refractory GERD with a low side effect profile. However, longer-term data and comparative efficacy studies are needed.

Tailoring the wrap: intraoperative functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) during hiatal hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) has provided objective, real-time feedback on the geometric variations with each component of a hiatal hernia repair (HHR). The utility of this technology in altering intraoperative decision-making has been scarcely reported. Herein, we report a single-center series of intraoperative FLIP during HHR. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic medical records between 2020 and 2022 was conducted and all patients undergoing non-recurrent HHR with FLIP were queried. Patient and hernia characteristics, intraoperative FLIP values and changes in decision-making, as well as early post-operative outcomes were reported. Both diameter and distensibility index (DI) were measured at 40 ml and 50 ml balloon inflation after hiatal dissection, after hiatal closure, and after fundoplication when indicated. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 62 ± 14 years and mean BMI was 28 ± 6 kg/m2. The majority (53%) were type I hiatal hernias. The largest drop in DI occurred after hiatal closure, with minimal change seen after fundoplication (mean DI of 4.3 ± 2. after completion of HH dissection, vs 2.7 ± 1.2 after hiatal closure and 2.3 ± 1 after fundoplication when performed). In 13 (39%) of cases, FLIP values directly impacted intraoperative decision-making. Fundoplication was deferred in 4/13 (31%) patients, the wrap was loosened in 2/13 (15%); the type of fundoplication was altered to achieve adequate anti-reflux values in 2/13 (15%) patients, and in 1/13 (3%) the wrap was tightened. CONCLUSION: FLIP measurements can be used intraoperatively to guide decision-making and alter management plan based on objective values. Long-term outcomes and further prospective studies are required to better delineate the value of this technology.

Comparative anatomic and symptomatic recurrence outcomes of diaphragmatic suture cruroplasty versus biosynthetic mesh reinforcement in robotic hiatal and paraesophageal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal and paraesophageal hernia (HH/PEH) recurrence is the most common cause of failure after gastroesophageal anti-reflux surgery. Crural reinforcement with mesh has been suggested to address this issue, but its efficacy remains debated. In this study, we aimed to determine the impact of biosynthetic mesh reinforcement compared to suture cruroplasty on anatomic and symptomatic hernia recurrence. METHOD: Data of patients who underwent robotic HH/PEH repair with suture cruroplasty with or without biosynthetic mesh reinforcement between January 2012 and April 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and anatomic hernia recurrence were assessed at short-term (3 months to 1 year) and longer-term (≥ 1 year) follow-up. Symptomatic hernia recurrence was defined as having both anatomic recurrence and symptoms. RESULTS: Out of the 503 patients in the study, 308 had undergone biosynthetic mesh repair, while 195 had suture-only repair. After the surgery, both groups demonstrated comparable improvements in symptoms. Short-term anatomic hernia recurrence rates were 11.8% and 15.6% for mesh and suture groups, respectively (p = 0.609), while longer-term rates were 24.7% and 44.9% (p = 0.015). The rates of symptomatic hernia recurrence in the same group were 8.8% and 14.6% in the short-term (p = 0.256), and 17.2% and 42.2% in longer-term follow-ups (p = 0.003). In the repair of medium and large-size hernias, mesh reinforcement resulted in a 50.0% relative risk reduction in anatomic hernia recurrences and a 59.2% reduction in symptomatic hernia recurrences at ≥ 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: After more than a year of follow-up, it has been found that using biosynthetic mesh for medium and large hiatal or paraesophageal hernia repair significantly reduces the likelihood of both anatomic and symptomatic recurrence compared to using only suture cruroplasty. These findings strongly support the use of biosynthetic mesh to manage larger hernias. However, further long-term multicenter randomized studies are needed to provide more conclusive evidence.

Association of gastroesophageal junction laxity and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a prevalent condition with significant clinical variability, complicating its evaluation and treatment. The gastroesophageal flap valve is a fundamental evaluation method, but have shown limitations in specificity and reliance on subjective endoscopists' experience. Recent insights suggest that gastroesophageal junction laxity may offer an objective and quantifiable measurement for the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed data from 401 patients who underwent comprehensive evaluations, including a symptom questionnaire, endoscopy, pH-impedance monitoring, high-resolution manometry, and treatment directions, between January 1, 2022 and October 31, 2023. Gastroesophageal junction laxity was assessed using a modified approach based on endoscopic image analysis, with the diameter of endoscope as reference to estimate the long diameter of the laxity ring. The independent association of gastroesophageal junction laxity with pathologic acid exposure, esophagitis, and hiatal hernia were assessed by adjusting with age and sex. RESULTS: The mean age was 44.5 ± 5.5 years old, and 49.9% (200/401) were male. The most common symptoms (≥ 1 point) were acid regurgitation (333/401, 83.0%), heartburn (315/401, 78.6%), belching (278/401, 69.3%), bloating (241/401, 60.1%), and globus sensation (241/401, 60.1%). The gastroesophageal junction laxity was significantly associated with pathologic acid exposure, esophagitis, hiatal hernia, and lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure. Notably, with the increase in gastroesophageal junction laxity, the rates of pathologic acid exposure, esophagitis, and hiatal hernia increased gradually, the lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure decreased gradually. The gastroesophageal junction laxity was independent associated with pathologic acid exposure (OR = 2.33, 95%CI 1.77-3.07, p < 0.001), esophagitis (OR = 2.10, 95%CI 1.62-2.73, p < 0.001), and hiatal hernia (high-resolution manometry: OR = 3.39, 95%CI: 2.46-4.67, p < 0.001) (endoscopy: OR = 21.65, 95%CI 11.70-40.06, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The gastroesophageal junction laxity was significantly associated with the indicators of pathophysiology in gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Clinical and computed tomography outcomes after mesh-enforced hiatoplasty and anterior hemi-fundoplication in large hiatal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The surgical technique in large hiatal hernia (HH) repair is controversially discussed and the outcome measures and follow-up schemes are highly heterogeneous. The aim of this study is to assess the true recurrence rate using computed tomography (CT) in patients with standardized large HH repair. METHODS: Prospective single-center study investigating the outcome after dorsal, mesh-enforced large HH repair with anterior fundoplication. Endoscopy was performed after 3 months and clinical follow-up and CT after 12 months. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2021, 100 consecutive patients with large HH were operated in the same technique. There were two reoperations within the first 90 days for cephalad migration of the fundoplication. Endoscopic follow-up showed a correct position of the fundoplication and no relevant other pathologies in 99% of patients. Follow-up CT was performed in 100% of patients and revealed 6% of patients with a cephalad slippage, defined as migration of less than 3 cm of the wrap, and 7% of patients with a recurrent hernia. One patient of each group underwent subsequent reoperation due to symptoms. There was no statistical correlation between abnormal radiological findings and clinical outcomes with 69.2% of patients being asymptomatic. Multivariate logistic regression did not show any prognostic factor for an unfavorable radiologic outcome. Ninety-four percent of patients rated their outcomes as excellent or good. CONCLUSION: Radiological follow-up after large HH repair using CT allows to detect slippage of the fundoplication wrap and small recurrences. Patients with unfavorable radiological outcomes rarely require operative revision but should be considered for further follow-up.