Background and Objectives: Paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair can be performed with or without mesh rein-forcement. The use, technique, and mesh type remain controversial because of mixed reports on mesh-related complications. Short-term outcomes have become impor-tant in all forms of surgery. Methods: From January 2012 through April 2017, all patients who underwent isolated hiatal hernia repair in our center were reviewed. Concomitant bariatric surgery cases were excluded. Repairs reinforced by porcine urinary bladder matrix (UBM) graft were compared to non-UBM repairs. Statistical comparison was based on a Wilcoxon 2-sample test or Fisher’s exact test. Results: We reviewed 239 charts; 110 bariatric cases and 8 cases with non-UBM reinforcement were excluded. We identified 121 patients: 56 UBM-reinforced (46.3%) versus 65 non-UBM (53.7%). Sixteen (28.6%) UBM cases were male versus 23 (35.4%) non-UBM cases. The UBM patients were significantly older (63.9 versus 54.3; P = .001). There was no difference in mean BMI (29.6 vs 28.5; P = .28). Cases were performed laparoscopically (60.7% vs 67.7%; P = .45) or robotically (39.3% vs 32.3%; P = .45), with no conversions to open. The UBM group had a longer mean operative time (183 minutes vs 139 minutes; P = .001).There was no difference in median length of stay (2 days vs 2 days; P = .09) or 30-day readmission rate (7.1% vs 7.5%; P =.99). Postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and there was no difference (19.6% vs 9.2%; P = .12). Conclusions: Hiatal hernia repair with UBM reinforcement can be performed safely with no increase in postoperative complications.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Journal||Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons|
|State||Published - Apr 1 2018|
- Para-esophageal hiatal hernia
- Urinary bladder matrix
ASJC Scopus subject areas