Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423552›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Laparoscopic management of large hiatal hernia: mesh method with the use of ProGrip mesh versus standard crural repair.

V V Ilyashenko, Viktor V Grubnyk, V V Grubnik

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 24 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Response to: Comment on "Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: to Mesh or Not to Mesh".Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

V V IlyashenkoDepartment of Surgery, Odessa National Medical University, Odessa, Ukraine. vadim.ilyashenko@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4636-5799
Viktor V GrubnykDepartment of Surgery, Odessa National Medical University, Odessa, Ukraine.
V V GrubnikDepartment of Surgery, Odessa National Medical University, Odessa, Ukraine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary repair of large hiatal hernia is associated with a high recurrence rate. The use of mesh can lead to a reduce of recurrence rate. Despite this reduction, the type of mesh used and the placement technique are controversial. In our study, we used a new type of non-absorbable, self-fixating mesh to reinforce the cruroplasty. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term results of laparoscopic treatment of large hiatal hernia with mesh reinforcement versus simple crura repair.

methodsThis study was performed on 98 gastroesophageal reflux disease patients who underwent Nissen fundoplication with mesh-augmented crura repair and fundoplication with standard crura repair. We used non-absorbable laparoscopic self-fixating mesh by ProGrip™. All patients were separated into the mesh group (n = 50) and non-mesh group (n = 48). The groups were evaluated according to the following criteria: dysphagia, patients' symptomatic outcome judgment according to The Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire and patients' satisfaction, hiatal hernia recurrence according to upper endoscopy and a barium contrast swallow study. Follow-up was completed in 95 (97%) patients with a mean follow-up duration of 54 months (range 12-62 months).

resultsMean operative time was not significantly different (p = 0.30302). During the 48 months of follow-up, one recurrence occurred in the mesh group and eight recurrences appeared in the non-mesh group (p = 0.027). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the mesh group (p = 0.004). The mesh group had a more significant improvement in GERD-HRQL score (p < 0.0001) compared to the non-mesh group.

conclusionIn conclusion, this study confirms that laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias is effective and durable over a long period of time. Reinforcement of crura repair with ProGrip™ mesh is safe and can prevent anatomical recurrences.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFundoplicationHernia, HiatalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProsthesis DesignQuality of LifeRecurrenceTime FactorsDysphagiaNissen fundoplicationReinforcement of the cruraSelf-fixating mesh

Identifiers

PMID29423552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.