Long-term reoperation rate following primary ventral hernia repair: a register-based study.
Epigastric hernia
Hernia repair
Primary ventral hernia
Recurrence
Reoperation
Umbilical hernia
Journal
Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery
ISSN: 1248-9204
Titre abrégé: Hernia
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9715168
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
received:
04
03
2022
accepted:
04
06
2022
pubmed:
9
7
2022
medline:
26
11
2022
entrez:
8
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to analyse the risk for reoperation following primary ventral hernia repair. The study was based on umbilical hernia and epigastric hernia repairs registered in the population-based Swedish National Patient Register (NPR) 2010-2019. Reoperation was defined as repeat repair after primary repair. Altogether 29,360 umbilical hernia repairs and 6514 epigastric hernia repairs were identified. There were 624 reoperations registered following primary umbilical repair and 137 following primary epigastric repairs. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) for reoperation was 0.292 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.109-0.782) after open onlay mesh repair, 0.484 (CI 0.366-0.641) after open interstitial mesh repair, 0.382 (CI 0.238-0.613) after open sublay mesh repair, 0.453 (CI 0.169-1.212) after open intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair, 1.004 (CI 0.688-1.464) after laparoscopic repair, and 0.940 (CI 0.502-1.759) after other techniques, when compared to open suture repair as reference method. Following umbilical hernia repair, the risk for reoperation was also significantly higher for patients aged < 50 years (HR 1.669, CI 1.389-2.005), for women (HR 1.401, CI 1.186-1.655), and for patients with liver cirrhosis (HR 2.544, CI 1.049-6.170). For patients undergoing epigastric hernia repair, the only significant risk factor for reoperation was age < 50 years (HR 2.046, CI 1.337-3.130). All types of open mesh repair were associated with lower reoperation rates than open suture repair and laparoscopic repair. Female sex, young age and liver cirrhosis were risk factors for reoperation due to hernia recurrence, regardless of method.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to analyse the risk for reoperation following primary ventral hernia repair.
METHODS
The study was based on umbilical hernia and epigastric hernia repairs registered in the population-based Swedish National Patient Register (NPR) 2010-2019. Reoperation was defined as repeat repair after primary repair.
RESULTS
Altogether 29,360 umbilical hernia repairs and 6514 epigastric hernia repairs were identified. There were 624 reoperations registered following primary umbilical repair and 137 following primary epigastric repairs. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) for reoperation was 0.292 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.109-0.782) after open onlay mesh repair, 0.484 (CI 0.366-0.641) after open interstitial mesh repair, 0.382 (CI 0.238-0.613) after open sublay mesh repair, 0.453 (CI 0.169-1.212) after open intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair, 1.004 (CI 0.688-1.464) after laparoscopic repair, and 0.940 (CI 0.502-1.759) after other techniques, when compared to open suture repair as reference method. Following umbilical hernia repair, the risk for reoperation was also significantly higher for patients aged < 50 years (HR 1.669, CI 1.389-2.005), for women (HR 1.401, CI 1.186-1.655), and for patients with liver cirrhosis (HR 2.544, CI 1.049-6.170). For patients undergoing epigastric hernia repair, the only significant risk factor for reoperation was age < 50 years (HR 2.046, CI 1.337-3.130).
CONCLUSIONS
All types of open mesh repair were associated with lower reoperation rates than open suture repair and laparoscopic repair. Female sex, young age and liver cirrhosis were risk factors for reoperation due to hernia recurrence, regardless of method.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35802262
doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02645-3
pii: 10.1007/s10029-022-02645-3
pmc: PMC9684296
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1551-1559Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Henriksen NA, Montgomery A, Kaufmann R, Berrevoet F, East B, Fischer J et al (2020) Guidelines for treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias from the European Hernia Society and Americas Hernia Society. Br J Surg 107(3):171–190
doi: 10.1002/bjs.11489
pubmed: 31916607
<2020-svenska-bukvaggsbrack-arsrapport-2019 (1).pdf>
Burcharth J, Pedersen MS, Pommergaard HC, Bisgaard T, Pedersen CB, Rosenberg J (2015) The prevalence of umbilical and epigastric hernia repair: a nationwide epidemiologic study. Hernia 19(5):815–819
doi: 10.1007/s10029-015-1376-3
pubmed: 25840852
Le Huu NR, Mege D, Ouaïssi M, Sielezneff I, Sastre B (2012) Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia. J Visc Surg 149(5 Suppl):e3-14
Jolissaint JS, Dieffenbach BV, Tsai TC, Pernar LI, Shoji BT, Ashley SW et al (2020) Surgical site occurrences, not body mass index, increase the long-term risk of ventral hernia recurrence. Surgery 167(4):765–771
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.01.001
pubmed: 32063341
Walming S, Angenete E, Block M, Bock D, Gessler B, Haglind E (2017) Retrospective review of risk factors for surgical wound dehiscence and incisional hernia. BMC Surg 17(1):19
doi: 10.1186/s12893-017-0207-0
pubmed: 28222776
pmcid: 5320761
Henriksen NA, Montgomery A, Kaufmann R, Berrevoet F, East B, Fischer J et al (2020) Guidelines for treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias from the European Hernia Society and Americas Hernia Society. Br J Surg 107(3):171–190
doi: 10.1002/bjs.11489
pubmed: 31916607
Bisgaard T, Kaufmann R, Christoffersen MW, Strandfelt P, Gluud LL (2019) Lower risk of recurrence after mesh repair versus non-mesh sutured repair in open umbilical hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Scand J Surg 108(3):187–193
doi: 10.1177/1457496918812208
pubmed: 30488767
Castro PM, Rabelato JT, Monteiro GG, del Guerra GC, Mazzurana M, Alvarez GA (2014) Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the repair of ventral hernias: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arq Gastroenterol 51(3):205–211
doi: 10.1590/S0004-2803201400030008
pubmed: 25296080
Forbes SS, Eskicioglu C, McLeod RS, Okrainec A (2009) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open and laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with mesh. Br J Surg 96(8):851–858
doi: 10.1002/bjs.6668
pubmed: 19591158
Liang MK, Berger RL, Li LT, Davila JA, Hicks SC, Kao LS (2013) Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open repair of primary ventral hernias. JAMA Surg 148(11):1043–1048
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3587
pubmed: 24005537
Zhang Y, Zhou H, Chai Y, Cao C, Jin K, Hu Z (2014) Laparoscopic versus open incisional and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 38(9):2233–2240
doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2578-z
pubmed: 24777660
Socialstyreslen. National patient register 2022 [Available from: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/registers/national-patient-register/
statistics Nhw. 2021 NCSP - Classification of surgical pNCSP - Classification of Surgical Proceduresrocedures: https://nhwstat.org/
Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, Feychting M, Kim J-L, Reuterwall C et al (2011) External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health 11(1):450
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-450
pubmed: 21658213
pmcid: 3142234
Zolin SJ, Tastaldi L, Alkhatib H, Lampert EJ, Brown K, Fafaj A et al (2020) Open retromuscular versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair for medium-sized defects: where is the value? Hernia 24(4):759–770
doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-02114-4
pubmed: 31930440
Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B, Seiler CM, Miserez M. Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(3):Cd007781
Toffolo Pasquini M, Medina P, Mata LA, Cerutti R, Porto EA, Pirchi DE (2022) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: does IPOM plus allow to increase the indications in larger defects? Hernia 26(2):525–532
doi: 10.1007/s10029-021-02506-5
pubmed: 34599719
Nishihara Y, Asami M, Shimada T, Kawaguchi Y, Omoto K (2021) Comorbid rectus abdominis diastasis is a risk factor for recurrence of umbilical hernia in Japanese patients. Asian J Endosc Surg 14(3):368–372
doi: 10.1111/ases.12868
pubmed: 33084230
Kimmich N, Haslinger C, Kreft M, Zimmermann R. 2015 [Diastasis Recti Abdominis and Pregnancy]. Praxis (Bern 1994). 104(15):803–6
Köhler G, Luketina RR, Emmanuel K. 2015 Sutured repair of primary small umbilical and epigastric hernias: concomitant rectus diastasis is a significant risk factor for recurrence. World J Surg;39(1):121–6; discussion 7
Nouh T, Ali FS, Krause KJ, Zaimi I (2018) Ventral hernia recurrence in women of childbearing age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 22(6):1067–1075
doi: 10.1007/s10029-018-1821-1
pubmed: 30182263
Hamilton J, Kushner B, Holden S, Holden T (2021) Age-related risk factors in ventral hernia repairs: a review and call to action. J Surg Res 266:180–191
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.04.004
pubmed: 34015515
pmcid: 8338875
Sperstad JB, Tennfjord MK, Hilde G, Ellström-Engh M, Bø K (2016) Diastasis recti abdominis during pregnancy and 12 months after childbirth: prevalence, risk factors and report of lumbopelvic pain. Br J Sports Med 50(17):1092–1096. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096065 (Epub 2016 Jun 20)
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096065
pubmed: 27324871