Method Article
Redo foregut surgery is challenging in today's clinical practice and is fraught with increased morbidity and reportedly a lower 'success' rate than the index procedure. Here, we present a protocol for a redo hiatal hernia repair via a minimally invasive approach.
Following a hiatal hernia repair, patients can present with recurrent or new symptoms. Symptoms can occur anywhere from weeks to years after surgery. These may include recurrent reflux, dysphagia, regurgitation, weight loss, or deteriorating quality of life. While nonoperative management can be pursued in some patients, reoperation may be the only option in select patients. A thorough preoperative workup, including a repeat esophagram, upper endoscopy, +/- chest computed tomography (CT) scan, manometry, pH probe, and/or gastric emptying study, is warranted to better understand the pathophysiology of the presenting symptoms. If a recurrent hernia, slipped, or migrated wrap is identified, surgery is considered. Pseudoachalasia must also be ruled out if obstructive symptoms are observed at the hiatus. Such an exhaustive workup is indeed necessary to ensure accurate diagnosis and optimal outcome. In addition, an understanding of the factors that may have led to the recurrence will increase the chances of a successful reoperation. Although a technically demanding procedure, redo hiatal hernia repair utilizing a minimally invasive approach is increasingly being employed with promising outcomes. Herein, the steps of a redo hiatal hernia repair via a minimally invasive approach will be outlined and detailed.
Redo foregut surgery is emerging as an important challenge in modern surgical practice. "Failure of hiatal hernia repair" may occur early or late in the postoperative period. A thorough workup to understand the underlying pathology and cause of recurrent symptoms (e.g., heartburn, reflux, dysphagia, or chest pain) is essential to appropriately address the clinical problem. Failure of hiatal hernia repair in the early postoperative period (hours to days) can be attributed to poor patient selection and/or technical error. A delayed failure may be due to a recurrence either secondary to a technical failure, enlargement of the hiatus over time (both presenting as reflux), or secondary to adhesions at the hiatus resulting in pseudoachalasia (resulting in dysphagia).
Multiple factors may contribute to recurrent hiatal hernia. When the esophagus is placed on tension during the initial dissection and the gastroesophageal junction is believed to be in the abdominal cavity, this can result in failure to recognize a shortened esophagus. One of the key dogmas of index hiatal hernia surgery is to ensure an adequate intra-abdominal esophageal length of a minimum of 3-4 cm prior to the creation of a fundoplication. Therefore, to avoid this, a good mediastinal dissection should have been performed at the index operation up to the inferior pulmonary veins or higher in order to achieve this intra-abdominal length. In the absence of an adequate mediastinal dissection, the tension on the esophagus would result in the migration of the wrap back into the chest. Similarly, due to inadequate mediastinal dissection, the wrap may slip distally on the esophagus due to tension, resulting in hernia recurrence. In such cases, an esophageal lengthening procedure must have been employed. Incomplete removal of the hernia sac may also result in recurrence due to the potential space present within the mediastinum, which makes the hernia recur in a conducive manner. Finally, inadequate closure of the crus and obesity with increasing body-mass index has also been attributed to hiatal hernia recurrence1,2.
Despite good initial surgical results, it is estimated that 15%-20% of patients will have symptomatic recurrence. While a majority of the patients can be treated non-operatively, up to 5%-10% of patients may require surgical revision3. Redo operations are technically demanding and may be associated with a higher rate of morbidity4. There is now ample evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive approach to reoperation; however, these can still pose a great challenge for even experienced surgeons5,6,7. Surgical correction of a recurrent hiatal hernia involves complete reduction of the hernia sac and contents followed by a redo fundoplication with or without gastroplasty. However, there are other options, including a bariatric weight loss procedure if the patient is morbidly obese, Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy, or an esophagectomy/gastrectomy depending on the complexity of the recurrent pathology (not discussed here and beyond the scope of this paper). These surgical options must be considered before taking the patient to the operating room.
Because these operations are difficult with poor delineation of anatomy, novice surgeons are encouraged to scrub in and/or seek help and guidance from experienced surgeons in their own practice and seek advice from their mentors prior to embarking on such challenging cases to optimize surgical outcome and avoid getting into surgical dilemmas during the operation itself. Herein, we describe the surgical steps and key principles of redo hiatal hernia surgery.
The described protocol follows the guidelines of our institution's human research ethics committee.
1. Preoperative assessment of the patient presenting with recurrent symptoms
2. Preoperative preparation
3. Minimally invasive approach: Scope insertion
4. Adhesiolysis and exposure
5. Mediastinal dissection and reduction of the hernia
6. Assessment of esophageal length
7. Hiatal repair
8. Creation of fundus wrap
NOTE: A Toupet fundoplication (posterior 270-degree wrap) is preferred in redo surgeries over a Nissen fundoplication (360-degree wrap) to prevent further scarring with complete wraps and secondary pseudoachalasia.
9. Postoperative care
10. Follow-up
Table 1 summarizes the most recent studies reporting outcomes of redo hiatal hernia repair2,8,9,10,11,12,13. The most common reason for the failure of the initial operation is migration of the wrap in 44%-89% of cases. A majority of cases were performed with a minimally invasive approach. Across the studies reviewed, in addition to hiatal hernia repair, a redo Nissen fundoplication was the most common fundoplication performed in 40%-80% of cases. A Collis gastroplasty was required in 24%-87% of cases. Overall complications ranged from 3% to 45%. An esophageal leak was one of the most feared postoperative complications, and it was reported in 2%-7% of cases. Length of follow-up varied; however, recurrence rates ranged from 4.4% to 31%.
Study | N | Reason for failure | Approach | Operation | Postoperative complications | Outcomes/recurrence | |||||||||||||
Juhasz et al. (2011)8 | 44 | Transmediastinal migration (89%) | Laparoscopic (52%), open (48%) | Fundoplication (48%), RNY reconstruction (52%) | Overall complications (39%), leak (7%) | 7% recurrence (mean follow-up 13.6 months) | |||||||||||||
Awais et al. (2011)2 | 275 | Transmediastinal migration (64%) | MIS (93%), conversion (3%), open (3%) | Nissen fundoplication (73%), Collis gastroplasty (43%), partial fundoplication (15%) | Leak (3.3%), atrial fibrillation (2.2%) | 11.2% failure (median follow-up 39.6 months) | |||||||||||||
Wennergren et al. (2016)9 | 34 | NA | Laparoscopic | Collis gastroplasty (24%) | Readmission (24%) | 12% recurrence (median follow-up 8.7 months) | |||||||||||||
Zahiri et al. (2017)10 | 46 | NA | Laparoscopic | Nissen fundoplication (80%), Collis gastroplasty (87%) | Overall complications (11%), 30-day readmission (4.4%) | 4.4% recurrence (1 year follow-up) | |||||||||||||
Kao et al. (2018)11 | 97 | Herniated wrap (44%), slipped wrap (23%) | Laparoscopic (82%), robotic (6%), conversion (10%), open (1.2%) | Nissen fundoplication (68%), gastropexy (46%), mesh buttress (47%) | Overall complications (45%), 30-day readmission (12%) | 31% recurrence (mean follow-up 48.3 months) | |||||||||||||
Nguyen et al. (2020)12 | 73 | NA | Laparoscopic | Fundoplication (64%), mesh buttress (49%) | Overall complications (3%) | 11% recurrence | |||||||||||||
Addo et al. (2022)13 | 190 | Transmediastinal migration (50%) | Laparoscopic | Nissen fundoplication (69%), mesh buttress (70%) | Overall complications (16%), 30-day readmission (10%), leak (2%) | 16% recurrence (median follow-up 17.6 months) |
Table 1: Summary of studies reporting outcomes of redo hiatal hernia repair. Abbreviations: NA, not available; RNY, Roux-en-Y; MIS, minimally invasive surgery.
With the exponential growth of hiatal hernia repair in the last few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of patients presenting with recurrent or persistent symptoms. Causes of failure of the index operation may be multifactorial, but are most commonly attributed to obesity and a shortened esophagus1,2. A thorough preoperative evaluation and diagnostic workup are necessary to identify the etiology and tailor the surgical approach. Isolating the cause of the patient's recurrent symptoms and establishing whether the symptoms are from surgical failure or attributable to some other etiology can be challenging. Symptoms should be clearly elicited - in terms of recurrent reflux, regurgitation of undigested food, chest pain/spasms, or early satiety indicative of delayed gastric emptying. A thorough analysis may possibly uncover a previously missed motility disorder.
Repair of recurrent hiatal hernia may be performed via a minimally invasive approach. During reoperation for recurrent hiatal hernia, the most critical steps are complete reduction of the hernia sac and contents and confirmation of adequate intraabdominal esophageal length. The surgeon must use intraoperative endoscopy to confirm adequate location of the gastroesophageal junction. An esophageal lengthening procedure may be necessary to achieve adequate esophageal length in order to reduce the chances of recurrence. The authors prefer to perform a Toupet fundoplication in these cases. A complete wrap may result in further scarring and secondary pseudoachalasia; therefore, we recommend avoiding a complete wrap if possible; however, this is at the surgeon's discretion. Finally, closure of the hiatal defect is an important aspect of this operation. Primary tension-free closure is advocated. However, depending on the size of the defect, the cause of recurrence, and the patient's overall protoplasm, a mesh repair may be indicated to decrease the risk of recurrence14.
Redo hiatal surgery is not without its complications4 and can range from 30% to 40% overall. Re-operative hiatal repair, especially in the setting of a prior implanted mesh, is fraught with complications. Therefore, patients should be adequately counseled and expectations set preoperatively. Many of these patients may not have complete symptom resolution. In addition, the chances of a subsequent recurrence are much higher after a first recurrence (up to 30%); thus, patients must be counseled accordingly. Postoperatively, most patients generally recover well and have symptom resolution with excellent patient satisfaction.
None.
None.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Da Vinci Xi | Intuitive | K131861 | the surgical robot |
Vessel sealer | Intuitive | 480422 | used to dissect, divide small vessels |
Penrose | Cardinal Health | 30414-025 | used to retract the esophagogastric junction |
Curved bipolar dissector | Intuitive | 471344 | used for dissecting |
SureForm stapler | Intuitive | 48345B | used for performing the Collis gastroplasty |
Eithobond sutures | Ethicon | https://www.jnjmedtech.com/en-US/companies/ethicon | used for reapproximating the hiatus |
Biologic mesh | Cook Biotech | G51578 | used to reinforce the hiatus |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved