Skip to main content
main-content

10.02.2020 | 2019 SAGES Oral

Minimally invasive approach to hiatal hernia repair is superior to open, even in the emergent setting: a large national database analysis

Zeitschrift:
Surgical Endoscopy
Autoren:
Salim Hosein, Tyson Carlson, Laura Flores, Priscila Rodrigues Armijo, Dmitry Oleynikov
Wichtige Hinweise
Address for Dr. Dmitry Oleynikov and Dr. Salim Hosein reflect the address at the time the study was performed.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract

Background

We aimed to examine the outcomes and utilization of different hiatal hernia repair (HHR) approaches in elective and emergent/urgent settings. Methods: Vizient 2015–2017 database was queried for adult patients who underwent HHR. Patients were grouped into open (OHHR), laparoscopic (LHHR), or robotic-assisted (RHHR), and further stratified by elective or urgent status and severity of illness at admission. Surgical outcomes and costs were compared across all groups. Statistical analysis were done using SPSS v.25.0.

Results

9171 adults were included (OHHR N = 1534;LHHR N = 6796;RHHR N = 841). LHHR was the most utilized approach (74.1%), followed by OHRR (16.7%) and RHHR (9.2%). OHHR was employed three times as frequently in U settings, compared to elective. Overall, OHHR had longer mean length of stay (LOS; 9.41 vs. < 4 days) and higher postoperative complication rates (8.8% vs < 3.8%), mortality (2.7% vs < 0.5%) and mean direct cost ($27,842 vs < $10,407), when compared to both LHHR and RHHR, all p < 0.05. Analysis of mild to severely ill elective cases demonstrated LHHR and RHHR to be better than OHHR regarding complications (p < 0.05), cost (p < 0.001) and LOS (p < 0.013); there were insufficient extremely ill elective patients for meaningful analysis. In the urgent setting, minimally invasive approaches predominate, overtaken by OHHR only for the extremely ill. Despite the urgent setting, for mild-moderately ill patients, OHHR was statistically inferior to both LHHR and RHHR for LOS (p = 0.002, p < 0.0001) and cost (p = 0.0133, p < 0.001). In severe-extremely ill patients, despite being more utilized, OHHR was not superior to LHHR; in fact, complication, cost, and mortality trends (all p > 0.05) favored LHHR.

Conclusion

Our analysis demonstrated LHHR to currently be the most employed approach overall. LHHR and RHHR were associated with lower cost, decreased LOS, complications, and mortality compared to OHHR, in all but the sickest of patients. Patients should be offered minimally invasive HHR, even in urgent/emergent settings, if technically feasible.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Jetzt e.Med bestellen und 100 € sparen!

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel
  1. Sie können e.Med Chirurgie 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Chirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise