• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair Is Safe in Elderly Patients

Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair Is Safe in Elderly Patients

Amrit A Rambhajan, MD, David M Parker, MD, FACS, Anna R Ibele, MD, Kathleen Johanson, DO, Vladin Obradovic, MD, Jon D Gabrielsen, MD, FACS, Anthony T Petrick, MD, FACS

Geisinger Medical Center

Background: Paraesophageal hernias (PEH) are more common in older patients. Many patients are not referred for repair (LPEHR) due to underappreciated symptoms or concerns that surgical outcomes lead to significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of our study was to analyze outcomes of initial PEH repair in elderly patients.
Methods: All patients undergoing repair of an initial paraesophageal hernia between January 2003 and January 2012 at our center were entered into a prospectively maintained database (n=268). All patients were divided into groups by age (Y<69 and O>70). The older group was further subdivided into YO=70-79 and VO>80. The BMI, Charlson score, operative time, estimated blood loss, LOS, recurrence, QOLRAD scores, morbidities and mortality were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Results: The mean age of patients in Y (n=141) was 56.2 [range 32-69] while in O (n=127) the mean age was 77.4 [range 70-98] Subgroup YO had 82 and VO had 45 patients. The older group O had a significantly greater Charlson score than Y (5.17 v 1.96; p<0.001). Charlson score was also significantly higher for both YO (4.76) and VO (5.91) compared to Y (p<0.001). BMI was higher in Y (31.4) than O (28.2; p< .001). There was no difference in operative time or EBL for the groups.
The mean LOS was significantly shorter for Y (2.44) compared to O (3.84; p<0.001). Overall morbidity was greater in O (23.6%) vs Y (13.5%; p=0.034) as was the need for ICU (O=9.45% vs Y=1.47%; p=.007). There was no difference between the need for postop ventilator support between the Y and O groups, but when subgroups were compared it was higher in VO (Y=1.4% vs VO=11.1%; p=0.003). Re-operation within 30days was more common in the older group O (5.5%) than the younger Y (0.73%; p=0.02). There were no differences between the groups in the leak rate or need for transfusion. All repairs were completed laparoscopically. Mortality was 0.75% for all patients, with only 1 death in each group (Y,O).
The mean follow up was 23.7 months for all patients with no significant differences between any of the groups. Symptomatic PEH recurrences were similar between the groups (Y=4.4% vs O=3.2%; p=0.61). There was a significant improvement in QOLRAD scores in both groups (Y 107.3 to 161.7, p<0.001and O (104.7 to 166.1, p<0.001), however the improvement in QOLRAD scores was not significantly different between groups (Y=54.4 vs O=60.0; p=0.51).
Conclusion: As expected, patients > 70 years old with symptomatic PEH had more co-morbid medical problems than younger patients. These factors did not preclude LPEHR although they did lead to greater morbidity, LOS and re-operative rates. Despite these factors, the mortality rate was very low for both groups. At 23 months follow up, the clinical benefits of LPEHR were also significant and similar for both groups with very low recurrence rates. The decision to perform LPEHR in elderly patients remains challenging, but the procedure can be done safely and is effective in these patients in experienced centers.


Session: Poster Presentation

Program Number: P236

154

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals