ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Revisional paraesophageal hernia repair outcomes compare favorably to initial operations.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative FLIP to guide revisional hiatal hernia repair: early experience and outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Clinical and computed tomography outcome after primary and revisional fundoplication.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Short term safety and efficacy of robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia repair without mesh: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Patient reported outcomes and decision regret scores in redo-paraesophageal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Does crural repair with biosynthetic mesh improve outcomes of revisional surgery for recurrent hiatal hernia?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Observational
- Economic evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Revision paraesophageal hernia repair outcomes in patients with typical and atypical reflux.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Robotic Hiatal Hernia Repair Associated with Higher Morbidity and Readmission Rates Compared to Laparoscopic Repair: 10-Year Analysis from the National Readmissions Database (NRD).Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- Letter to the Editor on "Complications Following Robotic Hiatal Hernia Repair Are Higher Compared to Laparoscopy".Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- Primary versus redo paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair: a comparative analysis of operative and quality of life outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrent paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair is performed for symptomatic recurrent hiatal hernia and/or reflux with little understanding as to outcomes related to perioperative and subjective patient variables. The aim of this study was to understand what differences exist between patients undergoing initial paraesophageal hernia (IPEH) repair and those undergoing redo paraesophageal hernia (RPEH) repair.
methodsA review of PEH repairs between 2009 and 2013 was performed from a single institution. RPEH patients were identified and analyzed for demographic information, perioperative/intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes. A similar comparison group of IPEH patients was randomly selected from the same sample as a control. A phone questionnaire was administered to the RPEH group.
resultsAmong 336 total PEH repairs from 2009 to 2013, 34 RPEH patients were identified. A matched cohort of 76 patients was identified. RPEH and IPEH groups had similar DeMeester score, incidence of Barrett's esophagus, incidence of gastritis, and LOS. Readmission rates (15 vs. 24 %, p = 0.283) and recurrence rate (4 vs. 12 %, p = 0.201) were not statistically different between IPEH and RPEH repairs, respectively. Operative times (163 vs. 209 min, p < 0.001), incidence of Collis gastroplasty (1 vs. 24 %, p < 0.001), and EBL > 10 cc (25 vs. 51 %, p < 0.023) differed between IPEH and RPEH repairs, respectively. Recurrent symptoms included chest pain (37 %), solid dysphagia (42 %), nausea (58 %), vomiting (32 %), bloating (63 %), and hoarseness (21 %). 21 % of patients required ongoing antacid therapy. Patient satisfaction via phone questionnaires demonstrated 88 % of patients were completely satisfied.
conclusionsRecurrent PEH repair is performed with similar outcomes to IPEH repair with the exception of increased operative time and blood loss. Collis gastroplasty is required more frequently in RPEH patients. Persistent symptoms exist following RPEH repair. Despite recurrent symptomatology, patient satisfaction is high. RPEH repair may be safely performed in patients with recurrent paraesophageal hernias with outcomes similar to IPEH repairs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.