ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating surgical outcomes of hiatal hernia repair techniques with and without fundoplication: a network meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- A new technique for treating hiatal hernia with gastroesophageal reflux disease: the laparoscopic total left-side surgical approach.BMC surgery · 2021Trial
- Removal of the sac during surgery for the repair of "giant" paraesophageal hernias.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Continuously sutured versus linear-stapled anastomosis in robot-assisted hybrid Ivor Lewis esophageal surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a single-center cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Preoperative calculation of angles of vision and working area in laparoscopic surgery to treat a giant hiatal hernia.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic hiatal hernia repair is a complex surgery typically performed by general abdominal surgeons because it typically involves an abdominal approach. Here, we report our experiences on laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia as thoracic surgeons.
methodsBased on our experience of minimally invasive esophageal surgery (MIES) for esophageal cancer, we began performing laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia in 2009. We analyzed the surgery-related data and postoperative outcomes of 18 consecutive patients we operated on from 2009 to 2017.
resultsThere were 1 male and 17 female patients with a median age of 73 years (range, 37-81 years). Ten of 14 symptomatic patients experienced reflux symptoms, such as heartburn. Four patients had a history of prior abdominal surgery. Hiatal hernia types I, II, III, and IV were observed in 3, 9, 5, and 1 patients, respectively. Two (11.1%) laparoscopic procedures required conversion. Modified Collis gastroplasty was used as an esophageal lengthening procedure in 5 patients (27.8%). Mean operation time was 213.8±70.1 minutes and mean hospital stay was 6.2±1.5 days. There were no postoperative complications. At the last follow-up, 15 patients (83.3%) were asymptomatic; however, 3 (16.7%) complained of reflux or dysphagia. Recurrent hiatal hernia was detected on an esophagogram in only 1 patient at 3.5 years after laparoscopic surgery.
conclusionsLaparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia is a feasible technique with a satisfactory surgical outcome. Importantly, it can be performed by thoracic surgeons who are experienced in the laparoscopic approach.
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.