0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quality of life after giant hiatus hernia repair: A systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Elective surgery is the treatment of choice for symptomatic giant hiatus hernia (GHH), and quality of life (QoL) has become an important outcome measure following surgery. The aim of this study is to review the literature assessing QoL following repair of GHH.

          Methodology:

          A systematic literature search was performed by two reviewers independently to identify original studies evaluating QoL outcomes after GHH surgery. MeSH terms such as paraoesophageal; hiatus hernia; giant hiatus hernia and quality of life were used in the initial search. Original studies in English language using validated questionnaires on humans were included. Review articles, conference abstracts and case reports and studies with duplicate data were excluded.

          Results:

          Two hundred and eight articles were identified on initial search, of which 38 studies (4404 patients) were included. Studies showed a significant heterogeneity in QoL assessment tools, surgical techniques and follow-up methods. All studies assessing both pre-operative and post-operative QoL ( n = 31) reported improved QoL on follow-up after surgical repair of GHH. Improvement in QoL following GHH repair was not affected by patient age, surgical technique or the use of mesh. Recurrence of GHH after surgery may, however, adversely impact QoL.

          Conclusion:

          Surgical repair of GHH improved QoL scores in all the 38 studies. The impact of recurrence on QoL needs further assessment. The authors also recommend uniform reporting of surgical outcomes in future studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: development, validation and application of a new instrument.

          At present, an instrument for measuring the quality of life, specifically for patients with gastrointestinal disease, is not available. A new instrument for gastrointestinal disorders that is system-specific has been developed in three phases. In the first phase, questions were collated and then tested on 70 patients with gastrointestinal diseases and those that worked well were retained. In the second phase, the questions were modified and tested on 204 patients and the results verified by international experts. The instrument was also validated against other generic measures of quality of life. During the third phase, the instrument was validated with 168 normal individuals. Reproducibility was tested on 25 patients with stable gastrointestinal disease and responsiveness was tested on 194 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The result is a bilingual (German and English) questionnaire containing 36 questions each with five response categories. The responses to questions are summed to give a numerical score. It is concluded that the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) is ready to be used in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Biologic prosthesis to prevent recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: long-term follow-up from a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial.

            In 2006, we reported results of a randomized trial of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR), comparing primary diaphragm repair (PR) with primary repair buttressed with a biologic prosthesis (small intestinal submucosa [SIS]). The primary endpoint, radiologic hiatal hernia (HH) recurrence, was higher with PR (24%) than with SIS buttressed repair (9%) after 6 months. The second phase of this trial was designed to determine the long-term durability of biologic mesh-buttressed repair. We systematically searched for the 108 patients in phase I of this study to assess current clinical symptoms, quality of life (QOL) and determine ongoing durability of the repair by obtaining a follow-up upper gastrointestinal series (UGI) read by 2 radiologists blinded to treatment received. HH recurrence was defined as the greatest measured vertical height of stomach being at least 2 cm above the diaphragm. At median follow-up of 58 months (range 42 to 78 mo), 10 patients had died, 26 patients were not found, 72 completed clinical follow-up (PR, n = 39; SIS, n = 33), and 60 repeated a UGI (PR, n = 34; SIS, n = 26). There were 20 patients (59%) with recurrent HH in the PR group and 14 patients (54%) with recurrent HH in the SIS group (p = 0.7). There was no statistically significant difference in relevant symptoms or QOL between patients undergoing PR and SIS buttressed repair. There were no strictures, erosions, dysphagia, or other complications related to the use of SIS mesh. LPEHR results in long and durable relief of symptoms and improvement in QOL with PR or SIS. There does not appear to be a higher rate of complications or side effects with biologic mesh, but its benefit in reducing HH recurrence diminishes at long-term follow-up (more than 5 years postoperatively) or earlier. Copyright © 2011 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Minim Access Surg
                J Minim Access Surg
                JMAS
                Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
                Wolters Kluwer - Medknow (India )
                0972-9941
                1998-3921
                Oct-Dec 2021
                16 April 2021
                : 17
                : 4
                : 435-449
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospital, Basildon, Essex, UK
                [2 ]Department of Surgery, Imperial College London, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK
                [3 ]National Bowel Research Centre (NBRC), Blizzard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [4 ]Department of Upper GI Surgery, Lancashire Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chorley, UK
                [5 ]Department of Upper GI Surgery, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chorley, UK
                Author notes
                [*]

                Joint first author

                Address for correspondence: Dr. Akshay R Date, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospital, Nethermayne, Basildon, Essex SS16 5NL, UK. E-mail: akshaydate92@ 123456hotmail.com
                Article
                JMAS-17-435
                10.4103/jmas.JMAS_233_20
                8486064
                33885030
                67ecb7e6-ee26-4fe4-8ddd-92d1b533812e
                Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery

                This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                : 19 September 2020
                : 23 November 2020
                : 25 November 2020
                Categories
                Review Article

                Surgery
                giant hiatus hernia,quality of life,surgical repair
                Surgery
                giant hiatus hernia, quality of life, surgical repair

                Comments

                Comment on this article