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.

Background

Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses.

Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management.

We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies.

Methods/design

The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used.

The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-up will be three years.

Discussion

Considering the high incidence and the multicenter design of this study, it may be assumed that the number of patients needed for this study (n = 214), may be gathered within one and a half year.

Depending on the expertise and available equipment, we prefer to perform a laparoscopic resection on patients randomised for elective surgery. Should this be impossible, an open technique may be used as this also reflects the current situation.

Trial Registration

(Trial register number: NTR1478)

Purpose

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic overview on both laparoscopic and conventional Hartmann reversal. Furthermore, the Hartmann procedure is reevaluated in the light of new emerging alternatives.

Methods

Medline, Ovid, EMBASE, and Cochrane database were searched for studies reporting on outcomes after Hartmann reversal.

Results

Thirty-five studies were included in this review of which 30 were retrospective. A total of 6,249 patients with a mean age of 60 years underwent Hartmann reversal. Two thirds of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I–II. The mean reversal rate after a Hartmann procedure was 44%, and mean time interval between Hartmann procedure and Hartmann reversal was 7.5 months. The most frequent reported reasons for renouncing Hartmann reversal were high ASA classification and patients’ refusal. The overall morbidity rate ranged from 3% to 50% (mean 16.3%) and mortality rate from 0% to 7.1% (mean 1%). Patients treated laparoscopically had a shorter hospital stay (6.9 vs. 10.7 days) and appeared to have lower mean morbidity rates compared to conventional surgery (12.2% vs. 20.3%).

Conclusion

Hartmann reversal carries a high risk on perioperative morbidity and mortality. The mean reversal rate is considerably low (44%). Laparoscopic reversal compares favorably to conventional; however, high level evidence is needed to determine whether it is superior.

Background

Outcome and morbidity of redo antireflux surgery are suggested to be less satisfactory than those of primary surgery. Studies reporting on redo surgery, however, are usually much smaller than those of primary surgery. The aim of this study was to summarize the currently available literature on redo antireflux surgery.

Material and Methods

A structured literature search was performed in the electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

Results

A total of 81 studies met the inclusion criteria. The study design was prospective in 29, retrospective in 15, and not reported in 37 studies. In these studies, 4,584 reoperations in 4,509 patients are reported. Recurrent reflux and dysphagia were the most frequent indications; intraoperative complications occurred in 21.4% and postoperative complications in 15.6%, with an overall mortality rate of 0.9%. The conversion rate in laparoscopic surgery was 8.7%. Mean(±SEM) duration of surgery was 177.4 ± 10.3 min and mean hospital stay was 5.5 ± 0.5 days. Symptomatic outcome was successful in 81.1% and was equal in the laparoscopic and conventional approach. Objective outcome was obtained in 24 studies (29.6%) and success was reported in 78.3%, with a slightly higher success rate in case of laparoscopy than with open surgery (85.8% vs. 78.0%).

Conclusion

This systematic review on redo antireflux surgery has confirmed that morbidity and mortality after redo surgery is higher than after primary surgery and symptomatic and objective outcome are less satisfactory. Data on objective results were scarce and consistency with regard to reporting outcome is necessary.