Minimally Invasive Paraesophageal Hernia Repair in the Elderly: Is Age Really Just a Number?

Abstract

Introduction: Paraesophageal hernias readily affect the elderly with a median age of presentation between 65 and 75 years. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) is a technically challenging operation with potential for dire complications. Advanced age and medical comorbidities may heighten perioperative risk and limit surgical candidacy, potentially refusing patients an opportunity toward symptom resolution. Given the increased prevalence in the elderly and associated surgical risks, we aim to assess age as an independent risk factor for perioperative morbidity and mortality after PEHR. Methods: A retrospective analysis using a prospectively maintained database assessed patients undergoing PEHR from 2007 to 2018. Patients were stratified by age: Group A (age <65 years), Group B (65≤ age <80 years), and Group C (age ≥80 years). Patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, postoperative outcomes, and mortality rate were analyzed. Barium esophagram was performed on symptomatic postsurgical patients. Recurrence was confirmed radiologically. Results: In total, 143 patients underwent laparoscopic (94.4%) or robotic-assisted (5.6%) PEHR. Average age per group was Group A (n = 49) 55.4 years (standard deviation [SD] ±8.91), Group B (n = 76) 71.4 years (SD ±4.40), and Group C (n = 17) 84.1 (years) (SD ±3.37). Group C had significantly higher rates of nonelective surgery (P = .018), preoperative weight loss (P = .014), hypertension (P = .031), ischemic heart disease (P = .001), and cancer (P = .039); preoperative body mass index was significantly lower (P = .048). Charlson comorbidity index differences between groups were significant (2.00 versus 3.61 versus 5.28, P < .001). Median follow-up was 426 days (6–3199). Symptom improvement was seen in 78.3% of patients. Recurrence and reoperation rates were not significantly different between groups. No differences were seen in mortality, length of stay, or postoperative complications between groups. Conclusions: PEHR in elderly patients proved to be safe and effective. Avoidance of emergent intervention may be achieved through a judicious elective approach to this anatomic problem. Symptom resolution and quality-of-life improvement can be safely achieved with surgical repair in this patient population, demonstrating that age is truly just a number for PEHR.