Crespin Oscar M, Yates Robert B, Martin Ana V, Pellegrini Carlos A, Oelschlager Brant K
Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2016 Jun;30(6):2179-85. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4522-1. Epub 2015 Sep 3.
Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair has a better chance of success if the hiatus is closed without tension. This study attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of hiatal hernia recurrence in patients who undergo hiatal closure with diaphragmatic relaxing incisions? (2) Can biologic mesh be safely substituted for synthetic mesh as coverage of the relaxing incisions?
We identified all patients who underwent laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair at our institution between 2007 and 2013 and reviewed their clinical records. Radiologic recurrence was identified by an experienced radiologist and defined as the presence of any abdominal contents located above the diaphragm on esophagram. Clinical recurrence was defined as little or no improvement in symptoms, the development of a new symptom, or the need for medical, endoscopic, or surgical treatment of postoperative symptoms.
A minimum of 6 months of radiologic and clinical follow-up was available for 146 (40 %) patients, including 16 with relaxing incisions. There were 66 (45 %) recurrent hernias detected on esophagram. There was no difference in the rate of recurrent hiatal hernia among the three groups: Primary closure of the hiatus (21/36 [58 %]), primary closure with biologic mesh reinforcement (36/94 [38 %]), and relaxing incision with biologic mesh reinforcement (9/16 [56 %]; p = 0.428). Two reoperations were performed on patients who underwent left relaxing incisions and developed symptomatic diaphragmatic hernias through the left relaxing incisions. There were no complications associated with use of biologic mesh at the hiatus.
Rate of recurrent hiatal hernia is similar between patients who undergo diaphragmatic relaxing incisions and patients who undergo primary hiatal closure. Relaxing incisions can be safely performed on either crus; however, biologic mesh should not be used to patch a left-sided relaxing incision due to the risk of developing a diaphragmatic hernia.
如果在无张力的情况下关闭裂孔,腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术成功的几率会更高。本研究试图回答以下问题:(1)接受裂孔关闭加膈肌松弛切口的患者食管裂孔疝复发率是多少?(2)生物补片能否安全地替代合成补片用于覆盖松弛切口?
我们确定了2007年至2013年期间在本机构接受腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术的所有患者,并回顾了他们的临床记录。由经验丰富的放射科医生确定影像学复发,定义为食管造影显示膈肌上方存在任何腹腔内容物。临床复发定义为症状改善很少或没有改善、出现新症状,或需要对术后症状进行药物、内镜或手术治疗。
146例(40%)患者至少有6个月的影像学和临床随访资料,其中16例有松弛切口。食管造影发现66例(45%)复发疝。三组间食管裂孔疝复发率无差异:裂孔一期关闭(21/36 [58%])、生物补片加固一期关闭(36/94 [38%])、生物补片加固松弛切口(9/16 [56%];p = 0.428)。对接受左侧松弛切口且通过左侧松弛切口出现有症状的膈肌疝的患者进行了两次再次手术。在裂孔处使用生物补片未出现并发症。
接受膈肌松弛切口的患者与接受裂孔一期关闭的患者食管裂孔疝复发率相似。两侧脚均可安全地进行松弛切口;然而,由于有发生膈肌疝的风险,生物补片不应用于修补左侧松弛切口。