Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29766301›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2018

Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using sutures versus sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh.

Jelmer E Oor, David J Roks, Jan H Koetje, Joris A Broeders, Henderik L van Westreenen, Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs, Eric J Hazebroek

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jelmer E OorDepartment of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3430 VB, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. j.oor@antoniusziekenhuis.nl.
David J RoksDepartment of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3430 VB, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Jan H KoetjeDepartment of Surgery, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Joris A BroedersDepartment of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3430 VB, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Henderik L van WestreenenDepartment of Surgery, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Vincent B NieuwenhuijsDepartment of Surgery, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Eric J HazebroekDepartment of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3430 VB, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
St. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLIsala · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent literature is characterized by a discrepancy between reported symptomatic and radiological recurrent hiatal hernia's following primary repair. Crural augmentation using mesh is suggested to reduce recurrence rates. The aim of this trial is to analyze 1-year outcome of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using sutures versus sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh.

methodsBetween 2013 and 2016, 72 patients with an objectified hiatal hernia were randomized for primary repair using non-absorbable sutures and sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh. Data regarding the incidence of recurrent hiatal hernia, need for endoscopic dilatation or surgical reintervention, postoperative dysphagia and/or reflux symptoms, general health, and use of acid-suppressing medication were analyzed.

results72 patients (n = 36 vs. n = 36) were included. One year after primary repair and repair using non-absorbable mesh, there were no differences in the number of recurrent hiatal hernia's demonstrated by barium swallow radiology (n = 4 [11.4%] vs. n = 6 [19.4%], p = 0.370) or upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (n = 5 [14.4%] vs. n = 5 [17.2%], p = 0.746), the number of surgical reinterventions (n = 2 [5.6%] vs. n = 1 [2.8%], p = 1.000), nor in chest pain and heartburn scores, with comparable dysphagia and satisfaction scores. Compared to the preoperative state, both groups demonstrated a comparable and significant reduction in chest pain score and Dakkak dysphagia score.

conclusionsUse of non-absorbable mesh to reinforce primary hiatal hernia repair results in equal hiatal hernia recurrence and symptomatic outcome compared to repair using sutures alone. During 1-year follow-up, there were no mesh-related complications. Follow-up beyond 1 year needs to demonstrate whether these findings are sustained.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsAdultAgedFemaleHernia, HiatalHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecurrenceReoperationSecondary PreventionSurgical MeshSuture TechniquesTreatment OutcomeHiatal herniaLaparoscopySurgical meshTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID29766301
OpenAlexW2803672880

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.