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.

Defining surgical outcomes and quality of life in massive ventral hernia repair: an international multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to set criteria for massive ventral hernia and to compare surgical outcomes and quality of life after ventral hernia repair (VHR). METHODS: The International Hernia Mesh Registry was queried for patients undergoing VHR from 2007 to 2013. Defect was categorized as massive if the width or length was greater than 15 cm or area greater than 150 cm(2). Massive VHR was compared to regular VHR. RESULTS: A total of 878 patients underwent VHR: 436 open, 442 laparoscopic with 13 deaths (1.5%) and 45 hernia recurrences (5.1%). Of those, 158 patients (18%) met criteria for massive VHR. Massive VHR patients had longer length of stay (LOS) and operative time and more hematomas, wound infections, wound complications, and pneumonias (P < .05). On multivariate analysis, LOS was longer, and early postoperative pain and activity limitation were greater in massive VHRs (P < .01). Massive VHR in the laparoscopic approach resulted in greater long-term mesh sensation (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: VHR in massive hernias have increased rates of complications and longer LOS.