Quality of life following repair of large hiatal hernia is not influenced by the use of mesh—Longer‐term follow‐up from a randomized trial

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe use of prosthetic mesh in laparoscopic repair of large hiatus hernias remains controversial. Clinical and quality of life outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of mesh versus suture repair previously showed few differences at early follow‐up. This study evaluated longer‐term quality of life outcomes from that trial.MethodsA prospective, multicentre, double blind randomized controlled trial assessed three methods of repair for large hiatus hernias: sutures‐only versus absorbable mesh versus non‐absorbable mesh. Quality of life was assessed using the Short‐Form 36 (SF‐36) questionnaire which was completed preoperatively and then at 3, 6, 12 months following surgery and annually thereafter. SF‐36 outcomes were compared across the three repair techniques at longer‐term follow‐up (3–6 years), and to earlier baseline and 12‐month outcomes.Results126 patients were randomized; 43—suture‐only, 41—absorbable mesh and 42—non‐absorbable mesh. Questionnaires were completed by 118 patients preoperatively, 115 at 12 months and 98 at longer‐term follow‐up (median 5 years). There were no significant differences between the repair techniques for the subscale and composite scores at longer‐term follow‐up. The mental component score improved significantly after surgery and was sustained across follow‐up for all techniques. The physical component score also improved significantly but was lower at longer‐term follow‐up compared to the 12‐month follow up in both mesh groups.ConclusionSurgical repair of large hiatus hernias provides sustained long‐term improvement in quality of life. The addition of mesh does not improve quality of life.Trial RegistrationThis trial is registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000725662.