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

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • 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
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 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
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • 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
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and 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
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • 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
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / The Giant Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernias. a New Definition and a New Management

The Giant Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernias. a New Definition and a New Management

NIAZY M SELIM, MD PhD MBChB FACS. UNIVERISTY OF KANSAS

Introduction: Over the past decade, yet challenging, laparoscopic surgery became the standard approach for the repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernias (PEH). The giant PEH is defined in the literature according to the size of the hernia sac. Although the size of the hiatal defect is the most important variable in the equation it has not been studied. The author also hypothesized that anterior mesh bridging carries less erosion

Materials and Methods: Thirty one patients, 15 males (48.4%) males and 16 (51.6%) female, presented with giant PEH. Mean age was 65.6 + 14.1 years. Main symptoms were bloating, chest pain and postprandial discomfort, GERD in 15 (48.4%) and 1 (3.2%) patient had recurrent pneumonias. The Da Vinci was used in 30 patients (96.8%) while one patient (3.2%) was repaired through laparotomy. Vertical and horizontal dimensions of the defect were measured in all patients (100%) and the surface area (cm²) was calculated. Hernia sacs were excised. No-tension crural repair was always attempted. Posterior bridging mesh was performed in the first 2 (0.6%) patients of this series. A novel anterior mesh placement was used in 12 (38.7%) repairs with/without crural repair. Primary posterior crural repair and mesh overlay performed in 15 (48.4%) defects. One patient had 2 meshes placed anterior and posterior to the esophagus. Nissen Fundoplication in 27 (87%) and Toupet in 3 (0.1%) and gastropexy in one patient. Leigh-Collis gastroplasty was required in one patient.

Results: Mean operative time was 142.2 + 42.3 minutes. No mortality. Mean surface area of the defect was 37.5 + 14.9 cm2. Postoperative pneumonia in one patient. The mean hospital stay was 3.4 + 6 days. The length of follow up is 42.8 + 145.3 months. One of the posterior bridging patients developed mesh erosion of the esophagus. Patient rejected surgery. Six (50%) of the anteriorly placed mesh had upper endoscopy with no mesh erosions. Seven patients (22.6%) developed temporary early postoperative dysphagia. One patient persisted to esophageal stricture which responded to dilation. Barium swallow was performed in 12 (38.7%) patients and showed a small sliding hernia in the gastropexy patient. All patients were reported improvement of their preoperative symptoms.

Table 1: Hiatal defect size
Mesh Placement Mean Surface area (cm2) Min Surface area (cm2) Max Surface area (cm2) Defect height (cm) Defect Width (cm)
Anteriorly 50.3 + 6.5 35.96 57.5 7.5 + 0.7 6.8 + 0.9
Posteriorly 27.1 + 11.5 12 56.8 5.6 + 0.9 4.7 + 1.7

Conclusion: Mesh bridging may be essential in the repair of the giant PEH with surface area of 40cm2 or greater. The author suggests this modification to the hiatal hernia classification: Type I: Sliding hiatal hernia (SHH), Type II: Small Paraesophageal hernia (sPEH), Type III: Mixed hernia amenable to primary crural repair (MHH) and Type IV: Giant Mixed hernia not amenable to primary crural repair (GMHH). The anterior placement of the mesh is promising in the surgical treatment of Type IV MHHb.


Session: Poster
Program Number: P301
View Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals