This retrospective, single‑center observational study evaluated the association between preoperative hiatal hernia size and development of de novo gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) following sleeve gastrectomy. The cohort comprised 56 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy at Hospital Central Norte de Petróleos Mexicanos between 2018 and 2025. Mean age was 48.3 ± 8.1 years and 67.9% of patients were male.
Endoscopic classification of hiatal hernia size was used: small (<2 cm), medium (2.1–4 cm), and large (>4 cm). Hiatal hernia classification was conclusive in 46 patients (82.1%). Within this subset, 63.0% had no hernia, 4.3% had a small hernia, 30.4% had a medium hernia, and 2.2% had a large hernia.
De novo GERD was assessed among patients without preexisting reflux disease. Among the 43 patients without prior GERD, 6 developed de novo GERD, representing an incidence of 14.0% in this group. The study reports this outcome as the primary clinical endpoint for evaluating the association with hiatal hernia size.
Descriptive statistics were reported for demographic and clinical characteristics. Associations between hiatal hernia size and de novo GERD were tested using Fisher’s exact test and odds ratio estimation with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.
No significant association was detected between hiatal hernia size and the occurrence of de novo GERD (Fisher p = 0.515). The unadjusted comparisons and contingency testing did not show a statistically meaningful relationship between the categorized hiatal hernia size and postoperative reflux in this cohort.
Binary logistic regression was used to explore adjusted associations. In a reduced model comparing medium/large hernias versus absent/small hernias, the odds ratio for de novo GERD was 3.47 (95% CI 0.50–29.43; p = 0.207). Age was included as a covariate (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.90–1.13; p = 0.754). Neither variable reached statistical significance.
Other evaluated variables—sex, smoking status, and alcohol use—also did not show significant associations with de novo GERD in the analyses reported. The wide confidence intervals around effect estimates reflect uncertainty due to small numbers of outcome events.
The authors explicitly acknowledge that the low number of de novo GERD events limits the statistical power to detect or exclude clinically relevant associations. Hiatal hernia classification was not conclusive in all patients (conclusive in 46/56), which reduces effective sample size for the primary exposure. The retrospective single‑center design and reliance on the available, anonymized clinical database are additional constraints.
The report also notes that most prior studies treat hiatal hernia dichotomously (presence vs absence) and that analyzing size categories offers additional granularity, but that the current sample was insufficient to provide definitive evidence about a size‑dependent risk effect. The authors suggest the findings are compatible with a multifactorial mechanism for post‑sleeve GERD rather than an effect driven solely by the isolated presence or size of a hiatal hernia.
In this cohort, no statistically significant association was demonstrated between preoperative hiatal hernia size and development of de novo GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. However, the small number of outcome events and incomplete hiatal hernia classification limit definitive interpretation. The authors recommend prospective studies with larger sample sizes and the use of standardized reflux assessment instruments to validate or refute these observations. Data supporting the findings are not publicly available due to confidentiality but may be requested from the corresponding author pending institutional approvals.
Ethical approval was granted by the Research Committee of Hospital Central Norte, Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), Mexico City. A waiver of individual informed consent was obtained because the study used a retrospective anonymized database (COFEPRIS registration 18CL09002035). The authors declared no competing interests.