ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Incidence and timing of reoperation after hiatal hernia repair in a real-world multi-hospital cohort.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrence after hiatal/paraesophageal hernia repair is variably defined, and radiographic criteria may overestimate clinically meaningful failure. We evaluated the incidence, timing, and operative predictors of recurrence, defined pragmatically as reoperation, in a large multi-hospital cohort. STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study of adults undergoing hiatal and/or paraesophageal hernia repair (April 2017-April 2025) using an enterprise administrative/operative database. Cases were identified using CPT codes supplemented by operative descriptors and nursing documentation. Patients with prior or concurrent bariatric surgery were excluded. The index repair was the first qualifying repair within the study window. The primary endpoint was clinically significant recurrence, defined as subsequent hiatal/paraesophageal hernia reoperation. Time-to-event was analyzed using survival models that incorporated operative factors and accounted for clustering.
resultsAmong 2779 repairs, 900 bariatric-associated cases were excluded, leaving 1876 index repairs across 21 hospitals and 70 surgeons. Approach was laparoscopic in 49.3% and robotic in 48.0% (open 2.0%, thoracotomy 0.7%). Mesh was used in 51.1% and fundoplication in 39.4%. During follow-up, 49 reoperations (2.6%) occurred. Time to reoperation clustered early (median 348 days [IQR 107-623]), with follow-up extending to 3023 days. In unadjusted comparisons, reoperation was less frequent after fundoplication (1.86 vs. 2.99%) and more frequent with mesh reinforcement (3.04 vs. 2.03%). In adjusted time-to-event models accounting for clustering, fundoplication was independently associated with a lower hazard of reoperation, whereas mesh use was associated with a higher hazard.
conclusionsIn routine practice, reoperation after hiatal/paraesophageal hernia repair was uncommon and concentrated within the first several postoperative years. Fundoplication was associated with lower risk of clinically significant recurrence, while mesh use identified higher-risk cases, likely reflecting operative complexity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42301446What 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.