Background

There is controversy about the tailored or routine addition of an antireflux fundoplication in large hiatal hernia (type II–IV) repair. We investigated the strategy of selective addition of a fundoplication in patients with a large hiatal hernia and concomitant gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Methods

Between 2002 and 2008, 60 patients with a large hiatal hernia were evaluated preoperatively and 12 months after surgery by reflux-related symptoms, upper endoscopy, and esophageal 24-h pH monitoring. In patients with preoperatively documented gastroesophageal reflux disease, an antireflux fundoplication was added during hiatal hernia repair.

Results

An antireflux procedure was added in 35 patients and 25 patients underwent hiatal hernia repair only. Preoperative symptoms were improved or resolved in 31 patients (88.6%) in the group who had fundoplication and in 20 patients (87.0%) in the group who did not have fundoplication. In patients with fundoplication, esophagitis was present in 6 patients (22.2%) after surgery and abnormal esophageal acid exposure persisted in 11 (39.3%). Seven patients (38.9%) with hernia repair only developed abnormal esophageal acid exposure, and esophagitis was postoperatively generated in five (27.8%). In neither group did patients have new onset of daily heartburn or dysphagia.

Conclusions

In patients with a large hiatal hernia associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease, addition of a fundoplication during hernia repair yields acceptable reduction of symptoms and does not generate symptomatic side effects. Objective control of reflux, however, is only moderate. Omission of an antireflux procedure in the absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease induced esophagitis in 28% and abnormal esophageal acid exposure in 39% of patients. Therefore, routine addition of an antireflux fundoplication should be recommended.

Objectives To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function.

Design Single blind, randomised controlled trial.

Setting Two university medical centres, the Netherlands.

Participants 100 living kidney donors.

Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy.

Main outcome measures The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival.

Results Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one year's follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy).

Conclusions Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function.