Home > Journals > Minerva Surgery > Past Issues > Minerva Surgery 2021 February;76(1) > Minerva Surgery 2021 February;76(1):33-42



Publishing options
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Minerva Surgery 2021 February;76(1):33-42

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5691.20.08503-X


language: English

Concomitant hiatal hernia repair during bariatric surgery: does the reinforcement make the difference?

Cristian E. BORU , Pietro TERMINE, Pavlos ANTYPAS, Angelo IOSSA, Chiara M. CICCIORICCIO, Francesco DE ANGELIS, Alessandra MICALIZZI, Gianfranco SILECCHIA

Division of General Surgery and Bariatric Center of Excellence-IFSO EC, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia repair (HHR) is still controversial during bariatric procedures, especially in case of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Aims: to report the long-term results of concomitant HHR, evaluating the safety and efficacy of posterior cruroplasty (PC), simple or reinforced with biosynthetic, absorbable Bio-A® mesh (Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA). Primary endpoint: PC’s failure, defined as symptomatic HH recurrence, nonresponding to medical treatment and requiring revisional surgery.
METHODS: The prospective database of 1876 bariatric operations performed in a center of excellence between 2011-2019 was searched for concomitant HHR. Intraoperative measurement of the hiatal surface area (HSA) was performed routinely.
RESULTS: A total of 250 patients undergone bariatric surgery and concomitant HHR (13%). Simple PC (group A, 151 patients) was performed during 130 LSG, 5 re-sleeves and 16 gastric bypasses; mean BMI 43.4±5.8 kg/m2, HSA mean size 3.4±2 cm2. Reinforced PC (group B) was performed in 99 cases: 62 primary LSG, 22 LGB and 15 revisions of LSG; mean BMI 44.6±7.7 kg/m2, HSA mean size 6.7±2 cm2. PC’s failure, with intrathoracic migration (ITM) of the LSG was encountered in 12 cases (8%) of simple vs. only 4 cases (4%) of reinforced PC (P=0.23); hence, a repeat, reinforced PC and R-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) was performed laparoscopically in all cases. No mesh-related complications were registered perioperatively or after long-term follow-up (mean 50 months). One case of cardiac metaplasia without goblet cells was detected 4 years postoperatively; conversion to LRYGB, with reinforced redo of the PC was performed. The Cox hazard analysis showed that the use of more than four stitches for cruroplasty represents a negative factor on recurrence (HR=8; P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: An aggressive search for and repair of HH during any bariatric procedure seems advisable, allowing a low HH recurrence rates. Additional measures, like mesh reinforcement of crural closure with biosynthetic, absorbable mesh, seem to improve results on long term follow-up, especially in case of larger hiatal defects. In our experience, reinforcement of even smaller defects seems advisable in obese population.

KEY WORDS: Hernia, hiatal; Bariatric surgery; Laparoscopy; Gastroesophageal reflux

top of page