Wang Bin, Zhang Wei, Shan Cheng-Xiang, Liu Sheng, Jiang Zhi-Guo, Qiu Ming
Department of General Surgery of Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, China.
Surg Endosc. 2016 Jul;30(7):2865-72. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4570-6. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the issue of improvement of disadvantages of different type meshes.
A retrospective analysis was performed on 101 gastroesophageal reflux disease patients who underwent reinforcement of crura with or without prosthetic mesh. Three types of mesh, 4-ply biologic small intestine submucosa (SIS, Surgisis(®), since November 2010), 6-ply SIS (Biodesign™ Surgisis(®), since March 2011), and composite synthetic mesh (Crurasoft(®), since May 2010), were used. All patients were assigned to simple suture group (n = 35), 4-ply SIS group (n = 13), 6-ply Biodesign™ group (n = 26) or Crurasoft(®) group (n = 27). Postoperative follow-up was performed via clinical visit or phone call contact. Subjective assessment included dysphagia, patients' symptomatic outcome judgment according to Visick and patients' satisfaction. Objective evaluation included hiatal hernia recurrence according to upper endoscopy and barium contrast swallow. Follow-up was completed in 83 patients with a mean duration of 45 months (range 16-149 months).
For the objective outcomes, although anatomic recurrence of hiatal hernia did not significantly differ between groups at 6 months postoperatively, long-term results showed a protective effect of mesh implantation on hernia recurrence (p = 0.047). For the subjective outcomes, the mesh group had a more significant improvement in Visick score (p = 0.020) compared to the simple suture group. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the mesh group (p = 0.014), and subgroup analysis showed a clear trend as follows: Crurasoft(®) ≈ Biodesign(®) > SIS(®). A higher frequency of postoperative dysphagia was presented in the Crurasoft group compared with other two groups at 6 months postoperatively, but the difference was not significant over time (p = 0.227).
Mesh cruroplasty results in satisfactory symptom control with a low recurrence rate. 6-ply biologic mesh is promising with respect to the reduction in anatomic recurrences. Postoperative dysphagia does not occur commonly following mesh cruroplasty with PTFE/ePTFE mesh.
本研究旨在评估改善不同类型补片缺点的问题。
对101例行或未行补片加强膈脚术的胃食管反流病患者进行回顾性分析。使用了三种类型的补片,四层生物小肠黏膜下层补片(SIS,Surgisis®,自2010年11月起)、六层SIS补片(Biodesign™ Surgisis®,自2011年3月起)和复合合成补片(Crurasoft®,自2010年5月起)。所有患者被分为单纯缝合组(n = 35)、四层SIS组(n = 13)、六层Biodesign™组(n = 26)或Crurasoft®组(n = 27)。术后通过临床访视或电话联系进行随访。主观评估包括吞咽困难、根据Visick分级的患者症状结局判断以及患者满意度。客观评估包括根据上消化道内镜检查和钡剂吞咽造影评估的食管裂孔疝复发情况。83例患者完成随访,平均随访时间为45个月(范围16 - 149个月)。
对于客观结局,尽管术后6个月时各组间食管裂孔疝的解剖学复发无显著差异,但长期结果显示补片植入对疝复发有保护作用(p = 0.047)。对于主观结局,与单纯缝合组相比,补片组的Visick评分改善更显著(p = 0.020)。补片组患者满意度显著更高(p = 0.014),亚组分析显示出如下明显趋势:Crurasoft®≈Biodesign®>SIS®。术后6个月时,Crurasoft组术后吞咽困难的发生率高于其他两组,但随着时间推移差异无统计学意义(p = 0.227)。
补片膈脚成形术可实现令人满意的症状控制且复发率低。六层生物补片在减少解剖学复发方面前景良好。使用聚四氟乙烯/改性聚四氟乙烯补片进行补片膈脚成形术后,术后吞咽困难并不常见。