Tailored or Routine Addition of an Antireflux Fundoplication in Laparoscopic Large Hiatal Hernia Repair: A Comparative Cohort Study

Contains fulltext : 98394.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)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

Peritoneal changes due to laparoscopic surgery

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has been incorporated into common surgical practice. The peritoneum is an organ with various biologic functions that may be affected in different ways by laparoscopic and open techniques. Clinically, these alterations may be important in issues such as peritoneal metastasis and adhesion formation. METHODS: A literature search using the Pubmed and Cochrane databases identified articles focusing on the key issues of laparoscopy, peritoneum, inflammation, morphology, immunology, and fibrinolysis. Results : Laparoscopic surgery induces alterations in the peritoneal integrity and causes local acidosis, probably due to peritoneal hypoxia. The local immune system and inflammation are modulated by a pneumoperitoneum. Additionally, the peritoneal plasmin system is inhibited, leading to peritoneal hypofibrinolysis. CONCLUSION: Similar to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery affects both the integrity and biology of the peritoneum. These observations may have implications for various clinical conditions.1 januari 201

Minimally invasive surgery and cancer: controversies part 1

Perhaps there is no more important issue in the care of surgical patients than the appropriate use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for patients with cancer. Important advances in surgical technique have an impact on early perioperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, pain management, and quality of life issues, as clearly proved with MIS. However, for oncology patients, historically, the most important clinical questions have been answered in the context of prospective randomized trials. Important considerations for MIS and cancer have been addressed, such as what are the important immunologic consequences of MIS versus open surgery and what is the role of laparoscopy in the staging of gastrointestinal cancers? This review article discusses many of the key controversies in the minimally invasive treatment of cancer using the pro–con debate format