Study of Paraesophageal Hernia Repair With Small Intestine Submucosa

NCT ID: NCT00786084

Last Updated: 2009-10-01

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Total Enrollment

108 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2008-09-30

Study Completion Date

2009-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

In 2006 this research group reported their initial findings of a multi-center prospective trial comparing primary repair and primary repair buttressed with a biologic mesh made from porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS). We were able to accrue 108 patients from 7/2002-3/2005 and followed each patient over 6 months and performed an UGI to check the durability of the repair and rule out a recurrence. The results suggested a significant benefit for the use of SIS mesh in the short-term, with the primary group having a 26% recurrence rate and the mesh group a 9% recurrence rate.

While these results are encouraging, it is important to know what is the durability and the longer term benefits of the use of SIS mesh. For this reason we propose a follow-up of the original study patients with the same outcome measures (symptom questionnaire, SF-36, and UGI). This should give us a very good idea about the long-term success of laparoscopic PEH repair with primary and SIS mesh.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Traditionally paraesophageal hernias were repaired by thoracotomy or laparotomy with morbidity around 20% and mortality of 2%.1,2 The advent and later popularization of antireflux operations via the minimally invasive approach led to the development of a similar (laparoscopic) approach to the treatment of paraesophageal hernia. This approach called for the excision of the sac, a thorough esophageal mobilization, primary closure of the hiatus and a Nissen fundoplication. 3,4 Laparoscopy appears to have some of the benefits of thoracotomy (the hiatus can be accessed easier, the esophagus can be dissected under direct vision and high mobilization of the esophagus is possible) and some of the advantages of the laparotomy (less morbidity, no need to collapse the lung, no need for postoperative chest tube). In fact, most PEH are currently repaired via a laparoscopic approach.

Hashemi et al in 2000 reported that patients who had had a repair of a paraesophageal hernia via the laparoscopic approach had a higher recurrence rate when compared to those operated on via thoracotomy and laparotomy.5 The only other study comparing open and laparoscopic repair revealed a higher incidence of recurrence in the open repair group (8% vs. 0%),6 but was also based solely on symptoms. Case series of LPEHR which evaluate recurrent hiatal hernia by x-ray or endoscopy have found the recurrence rate to be between 12-42%,3,5,7 suggesting significant room for improvement.

It is not surprising that primary repair of the paraesophageal hiatal hernia by suturing the pillars of the diaphragm together under tension is at significant risk for disruption. With the development and wide application of mesh materials for tension-free repair of inguinal and ventral hernias, many surgeons have applied the technique of tension-free closure with a mesh to the hiatal hernia. Two randomized trials have demonstrated a significant reduction in recurrence rates by using synthetic mesh in large hiatal hernia repairs.8,9 However, there are potential problems introduced by using synthetic mesh at the dynamic hiatus such as mesh erosion, ulceration, stricture, and dysphagia.9,10,11 Recently, a number of biomaterials have been developed for hernia repair. The idea behind them is that a biologic scaffold, usually containing extracellular collagen, serves as a temporary matrix, thus strengthening a natural hernia closure.12,13 One such mesh is derived from porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) (Cook Surgical Indianapolis, IN). A pilot study using SIS for PEH repair suggested that is was safe and possibly effective in reducing recurrence.14 We then organized and carried out a multi-center randomized trial comparing primary repair of the crura and buttressing a primary repair with SIS mesh during laparoscopic PEH repair. The results at 6 months after operation demonstrated a nearly 3-fold reduction in the recurrence rate with the use of mesh (26% to 9%).15 Furthermore, there were no mesh related complications such as dysphagia, infection, or erosion. These results have been met with tempered enthusiasm in the surgical community. The only question in many surgeon's minds is whether buttressed repair of the hiatus is durable. To answer this question we need to complete longer term follow-up in these patients.

The aim of this study is to determine if the use of SIS to reinforce the closure of the hiatus in patients with paraesophageal hernias results in a lower recurrence rate at 2.5-5 years after operation, and results in improved outcomes, without an increase in the complication rate.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Hiatal Hernia Paraesophageal Hernia

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

CASE_CONTROL

Study Time Perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

1

Phase I patients who had a paraesophageal hernia repair with synthetic mesh.

No interventions assigned to this group

2

Phase I patients who had a paraesophageal hernia repair with small intestine submucosa mesh.

No interventions assigned to this group

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Prior enrollment in Phase I study.

Exclusion Criteria

* None.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Cook Biotech Incorporated

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role collaborator

Washington University School of Medicine

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Oregon Health and Science University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

The Oregon Clinic

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Washington

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

University of Washington

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Brant K Oelschlager, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Washington

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Washington University School of Medicine

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Oregon Health & Science University

Portland, Oregon, United States

Site Status

The Oregon Clinic, PC

Portland, Oregon, United States

Site Status

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter J, Soper N, Brunt M, Sheppard B, Jobe B, Polissar N, Mitsumori L, Nelson J, Swanstrom L. Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2006 Oct;244(4):481-90. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000237759.42831.03.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 16998356 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

21065-A

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Hernia Repair in Multiply Morbid Patients
NCT00930787 TERMINATED PHASE4
SurgiMend Mesh at the Hiatus
NCT04282720 COMPLETED NA