Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39271508›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Comparative anatomic and symptomatic recurrence outcomes of diaphragmatic suture cruroplasty versus biosynthetic mesh reinforcement in robotic hiatal and paraesophageal hernia repair.

Niloufar Salehi, Teagan Marshall, Blake Christianson, Hala Al Asadi, Haythem Najah, Yeon Joo Lee-Saxton, Abhinay Tumati, Parima Safe, Alexander Gavlin, Manjil Chatterji and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-AHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. 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

13 authors.

Niloufar SalehiDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3765-4000
Teagan MarshallDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Blake ChristiansonDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Hala Al AsadiDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Haythem NajahDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Yeon Joo Lee-SaxtonDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Abhinay TumatiDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Parima SafeDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Alexander GavlinDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Manjil ChatterjiDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Brendan M FinnertyDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Thomas J FaheyDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Rasa ZarnegarDivision of Endocrine & Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA. raz2002@med.cornell.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHiatal and paraesophageal hernia (HH/PEH) recurrence is the most common cause of failure after gastroesophageal anti-reflux surgery. Crural reinforcement with mesh has been suggested to address this issue, but its efficacy remains debated. In this study, we aimed to determine the impact of biosynthetic mesh reinforcement compared to suture cruroplasty on anatomic and symptomatic hernia recurrence.

methodData of patients who underwent robotic HH/PEH repair with suture cruroplasty with or without biosynthetic mesh reinforcement between January 2012 and April 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and anatomic hernia recurrence were assessed at short-term (3 months to 1 year) and longer-term (≥ 1 year) follow-up. Symptomatic hernia recurrence was defined as having both anatomic recurrence and symptoms.

resultsOut of the 503 patients in the study, 308 had undergone biosynthetic mesh repair, while 195 had suture-only repair. After the surgery, both groups demonstrated comparable improvements in symptoms. Short-term anatomic hernia recurrence rates were 11.8% and 15.6% for mesh and suture groups, respectively (p = 0.609), while longer-term rates were 24.7% and 44.9% (p = 0.015). The rates of symptomatic hernia recurrence in the same group were 8.8% and 14.6% in the short-term (p = 0.256), and 17.2% and 42.2% in longer-term follow-ups (p = 0.003). In the repair of medium and large-size hernias, mesh reinforcement resulted in a 50.0% relative risk reduction in anatomic hernia recurrences and a 59.2% reduction in symptomatic hernia recurrences at ≥ 1-year follow-up.

conclusionAfter more than a year of follow-up, it has been found that using biosynthetic mesh for medium and large hiatal or paraesophageal hernia repair significantly reduces the likelihood of both anatomic and symptomatic recurrence compared to using only suture cruroplasty. These findings strongly support the use of biosynthetic mesh to manage larger hernias. However, further long-term multicenter randomized studies are needed to provide more conclusive evidence.

Indexed as

Hernia, HiatalHerniorrhaphyRecurrenceRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgical MeshAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSuture TechniquesTreatment OutcomeAnti-reflux surgeryBioabsorbable meshBiosynthetic meshHiatal hernia repairParaesophageal hernia repair

Identifiers

PMID39271508

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.