ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia: are there factors associated with anatomic recurrence?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Robotic surgery for giant paraesophageal hernias: a promising approach to improved outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Surgical strategies for recurrent hiatal hernia: three-point fundoplication fixation.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Outcomes after revisional surgery for paraesophageal hernias at a high-volume tertiary care center.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Recurrence in Paraesophageal Hernia: Patient Factors and Composite Surgical Repair in 862 Cases.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- Trends in outcomes of 862 giant hiatus hernia repairs over 30 years.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Economic evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Surgical and clinical outcomes comparison of mesh usage in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Giant paraesophageal hernia: What do we really know?JTCVS techniques · 2020Article
- Who gets a PEG? An analysis of simultaneous PEG placement during elective laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Strategies for surgical remediation of the multi-fundoplication failure patient.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Predictors of Hiatal Hernia Recurrence After Laparoscopic Anti-reflux Surgery with Hiatal Hernia Repair: a Prospective Database Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepair of giant paraesophageal hernia (PEH) is associated with a favorably high rate of symptom improvement; however, rates of recurrence by objective measures remain high. Herein we analyze our experience with laparoscopic giant PEH repair to determine what factors if any can predict anatomic recurrence.
methodsWe prospectively collected data on PEH characteristics, variations in operative techniques, and surgeon factors for 595 patients undergoing laparoscopic PEH repair from 2008 to 2015. Upper GI study was performed at 6 months postoperatively and selectively thereafter-any supra-diaphragmatic stomach was considered hiatal hernia recurrence. Exclusion criteria included revisional operation (22.4%), size <5 cm (17.6%), inadequate follow-up (17.8%), and confounding concurrent operations (6.9%). Inclusion criteria were met by 202 patients (31% male, median age 71 years, and median BMI 28.7).
resultsAt a median follow-up of 6 months (IQR 6-12), overall anatomic recurrence rate was 34.2%. Symptom recurrence rate was 9.9% and revisional operation was required in ten patients (4.9%). Neither patient demographics nor PEH characteristics (size, presence of Cameron erosions, esophagitis, or Barrett's) correlated with anatomic recurrence. Technical factors at operation (mobilized intra-abdominal length of esophagus, Collis gastroplasty, number of anterior/posterior stitches, use of crural buttress, use of pledgeted or mattress sutures, or gastrostomy) were also not correlated with recurrence. Regarding surgeon factors, annual volume of fewer than ten cases per year was associated with increased risk of anatomic failure (54 vs 33%, P = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified surgeon experience (<10 cases per year) as an independent factor associated with early hiatal hernia recurrence (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.34-10.9).
conclusionsLaparoscopic repair of giant PEH is associated with high anatomic recurrence rate but excellent symptom control. PEH characteristics and technical operative variables do not appear to significantly affect rates of recurrence. In contrast, surgeon volume does appear to contribute significantly to durability of repair.
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.