ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Outcomes after revisional surgery for paraesophageal hernias at a high-volume tertiary care center.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical and computed tomography outcome after primary and revisional fundoplication.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough recurrences after repair of giant paraesophageal hernias (PEH) are common, revisional procedures are challenging and associated with higher complication rates than primary repair. Therefore, repair of recurrent PEH is often avoided except in symptomatic patients. Data describing operative outcomes in these infrequent cases is lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to report and compare peri-operative outcomes of revisional PEH repair to similar patients undergoing primary surgery.
methodsA single-institution, retrospective cohort study was conducted on all adult patients undergoing primary repair of Type II-IV PEH and any revisional surgery for recurrent hiatal hernia after previous primary PEH repair (2012-2019). Patient and operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes were extracted from medical records. Patients were grouped into revisional (rPEH) and primary repair (pPEH). Coarsened exact matching was performed to create balanced cohorts.
resultsA total of 347 cases were identified. The matched cohort included 234 patients (rPEH: 46, pPEH: 188). Patient sex and comorbidities were well balanced, while those who underwent revisions were younger (64 ± 13 vs. 69 ± 11 years; p = 0.01). Median time between primary and rPEH was 40[17-121] months. Incidence of emergency repair were similar among groups (rPEH: 9(15%), pPEH: 14(8%); p = 0.10). All revisional cases commenced laparoscopically with 7(15%) requiring conversion to open. The conversion rate was higher for rPEH than primary surgery (7(15%) vs. 3(2%); p < 0.01), with the most common reasons being adhesions and gastric fundus injury. Intra-operative complications occurred in 12(26%) revisional cases, of which 58% were gastric fundus injuries. Median length of stay was longer for rPEH than pPEH (2[1-5] vs. 1[1-2] day; p = 0.02). Incidence of severe complications (rPEH: 5(11%), pPEH: 11(6%); p = 0.23) and reoperations (rPEH: 2(4%), pPEH: 7(4%); p = 0.84) were similar between groups. There were no peri-operative deaths.
conclusionIn a high-volume tertiary care center, repair of recurrent giant paraesophageal hernias can be performed successfully laparoscopically in the majority of cases with acceptable morbidity and peri-operative outcomes in comparison to primary surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39433587What 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.