What are the differences in the outcome of laparoscopic axial (I) versus paraesophageal (II-IV) hiatal hernia repair?

<bold>Introduction: </bold>Comparison of elective laparoscopic repair of axial vs paraesophageal hiatal hernias reveals relevant differences in both the patient collectives and the complexity of the procedures.<bold>Materials and Methods: </bold>The present uni- and multivariable analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry compares the outcome for 2047 (67.3%) (type I) axial with 996 (32.7%) (types II-IV) paraesophageal primary hiatal hernias following laparoscopic repair.<bold>Results: </bold>Compared with the patients with axial hiatal hernias, patients with paraesophageal hiatal hernia were nine years older, had a higher ASA score (ASA III/IV: 34.8 vs 13.7%; p < 0.001), and more often at least one risk factor (38.8 vs 21.4%; p < 0.001). This led in the univariable analysis to significantly more general postoperative complications (6.0 vs 3.0%; p < 0.001). Reflecting the greater complexity of the procedures used for laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernias, significantly higher intraoperative organ injury rates (3.7 vs 2.3%; p = 0.033) and higher postoperative complication-related reoperation rates (2.1 vs 1.1%; p = 0.032) were identified. Univariable analysis did not reveal any significant differences in the recurrence and pain rates on one-year follow-up. Multivariable analysis did not find any evidence that the use of a mesh had a significant influence on the recurrence rate.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>Surgical repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernia calls for an experienced surgeon as well as for corresponding intensive medicine competence because of the higher risks of general and surgical postoperative complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]