ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Veritas Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernia (PEH) Repair Pilot Trial
This is an investigator initiated pilot study to observe the short-term outcomes (a follow-up period of up to six months) of patients who undergo a laparoscopic paraesophageal Hiatal hernia (PEH) repair using the Veritas® Collagen Matrix brand biological mesh. This is a preliminary study at the University of Washington. A PEH occurs when the stomach protrudes through the diaphragm next to the esophagus. The chance of recurrence of a Hiatal hernia after laparoscopic PEH repair is between 20-40% within 6 months.During laparoscopic PEH repair, a mesh-type product is used as a scaffold. The mesh serves as a reinforcing material during the surgical repair. It is cut to the appropriate size needed for the hernia and sutured to the surrounding diaphragmatic tissue. There are many different types of meshes available on the market, and vary in the degree of manageability, strength, and adherence. Although surgical meshes work on the same principal, the variance between materials may affect patient outcomes. There is evidence that a biologic mesh, specifically one derived from Small Intestinal Submucosa (SIS), decreases the short-term (6-month) recurrence rates compared to a synthetic mesh or another type of biologic mesh. A biologic mesh, serving as a scaffold, will be replaced by the patient's own tissue after about 6 months. Theoretically, this would prevent the possible complications associated with synthetic mesh including mesh erosion into the esophagus or stricture of the esophagus. There are some case series showing similar short-term results between the different biologic meshes, but there is no direct comparative data.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Use of Different Types of Mesh for Prevention of Incisional Hernia Versus Primary Abdominal Suturing#1029979
- Restorelle® Mesh Versus Native Tissue Repair for Prolapse#887997
- Characteristics Predictive of Pessary Success#883743
- Flat Polypropylene Mesh in the Treatment of Uterine and Recurrent or Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse#1007244
- Comparison of Mesh Fixation and Non-Fixation in eTEP#868099
Record · ID 914089
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive