Evidence Hub

Laparoscopic Repair of Primary Hiatal Hernia in Children: Systematic Review of Surgical Techniques and Outcomes

Agnieszka Wiernik, J. C. Moreno-Alfonso, Hanna Garnier, Alexander Sterlin, Amit Beher, Soichi Shibuya, Amulya K. Saxena

European journal of pediatric surgery, 2026

353 participants

Abstract

Objective This systematic review analyzed laparoscopic repair of primary hiatal hernia (HH) in children, focusing on presentation, diagnosis, surgical techniques, and postoperative outcomes. Methods Studies published between 2000 and 2025 on laparoscopic repair of primary pediatric HH were identified according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420261295203). Due to heterogeneity in study design and outcome reporting, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Data were summarized descriptively. Selected comparisons used Fisher's exact test and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs; p < 0.05). Results Twenty-seven studies reporting 353 patients met the inclusion criteria. The evidence was of low certainty, consisting predominantly of case reports ( n = 12) and case series ( n = 10), with only five retrospective cohorts and no prospective studies. Estimated median age was 18.6 months (range 6 days to 16 years). Gastroesophageal reflux disease was the most common symptom. Laparoscopic repair was performed in all patients, with 1.4% conversion rate and one intraoperative complication. Recurrence occurred in 21/331 (6.3%). Patch-reinforced repair showed a non-significantly higher recurrence rate than primary repair (OR 2.63, 95% CI: 0.54–12.8; p = 0.24). Esophageal stenosis was the most frequent postoperative complication ( n = 40/331; 12.1%) and was more common after Nissen-Rossetti than Thal fundoplication (OR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.11–6.25; p = 0.027), although heterogenous…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 353 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free