Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38565689›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2024

Lessons learned from revision procedures: a case series pleading for reinforcement of the anterior hiatus in recurrent hiatal hernia.

Jorrit H Geerts, Job W A de Haas, Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-AHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of crural reinforcement with bio-aHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jorrit H GeertsDepartment of Surgery, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands. j.h.geerts@isala.nl.ORCID 0009-0008-0975-0277
Job W A de HaasDepartment of Surgery, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Vincent B NieuwenhuijsDepartment of Surgery, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Isala · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHiatal Hernia (HH) is a common structural defect of the diaphragm. Laparoscopic repair with suturing of the hiatal pillars followed by fundoplication has become standard practice. In an attempt to lower HH recurrence rates, mesh reinforcement, commonly located at the posterior site of the esophageal hiatus, has been used. However, effectiveness of posterior mesh augmentation is still up to debate. There is a lack of understanding of the mechanism of recurrence requiring further investigation. We investigated the anatomic location of HH recurrences in an attempt to assess why HH recurrence rates remain high despite various attempts with mesh reinforcement.

methodsA retrospective case series of prospectively collected data from patients with hiatal hernia repair between 2012 and 2020 was performed. In total, 54 patients with a recurrent hiatal hernia operation were included in the study. Video clips from the revision procedure were analyzed by a surgical registrar and senior surgeon to assess the anatomic location of recurrent HH. For the assessment, the esophageal hiatus was divided into four equal quadrants. Additionally, patient demographics, hiatal hernia characteristics, and operation details were collected and analyzed.

results54 patients were included. The median time between primary repair and revision procedure was 25 months (IQR 13-95, range 0-250). The left-anterior quadrant was involved in 43 patients (80%), the right-anterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), the left-posterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), and the right-posterior quadrant in 10 patients (19%).

conclusionIn this study, hiatal hernia recurrences occured most commonly at the left-anterior quadrant of the hiatus, however, posterior recurrences were not uncommon. Based on our results, we hypothesize that both posterior and anterior hiatal reinforcement might be a suitable solution to lower the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia. A randomized controlled trial using a circular, bio-absorbable mesh has been initiated to test our hypothesis.

Indexed as

Hernia, HiatalHerniorrhaphyRecurrenceReoperationSurgical MeshAdultAgedFemaleFundoplicationHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesCase seriesHiatal herniaLaparoscopyMesh reinforcementRecurrence location

Identifiers

PMID38565689
PMCPMC11078792
OpenAlexW4393546826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.