Hospital-level variation in mesh use for ventral and incisional hernia repair.
Best practice
Hernia
Mesh
Practice improvement
Variation
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
received:
17
03
2022
accepted:
16
05
2022
pubmed:
20
7
2022
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
19
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Placement of prosthetic mesh during ventral and incisional hernia repair has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative hernia recurrence. Consequently, multiple consensus guidelines recommend the use of mesh for ventral hernias of any size. However, the extent to which real-world practice patterns reflect these recommendations is unclear. We performed a retrospective review of the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry (MSQC-HR) to identify patients undergoing clean ventral or incisional hernia repair between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was mesh use. We used two-step hierarchical logistic regression modeling with empirical Bayes estimates to evaluate the association of hospital-level mesh use with patient, operative, and hernia characteristics. A total of 5262 patients underwent ventral and incisional hernia repair at 65 hospitals with a mean age of 53.8 (14.5) years, 2292 (43.6%) females, and a mean hernia width of 3.2 (3.4) cm. Mean hospital volume was 81 (49) cases. Mesh was used in 4098 (77.9%) patients. At the patient level, hernia width and surgical approach were significantly associated with mesh use. Specifically, mesh use was 6.2% (95% CI 4.8-7.5%) more likely with each additional centimeter of hernia width and 28.0% (95% CI 26.1-29.8%) more likely for minimally invasive repair compared to open repair. At the hospital level, there was wide variation in mesh use, ranging from 38.0% (95% CI 31.5-44.9%) to 96.4% (95% CI 95.3-97.2%). Hospital-level mesh use was not associated with differences in hernia size (β = - 0.003, P = 0.978), surgical approach (β = - 1.109, P = 0.414), or any other patient factors. Despite strong evidence supporting the use of mesh in ventral and incisional hernia repair, there is substantial variation in mesh use between hospitals that is not explained by differences in patient characteristics or operative approach. This suggests that opportunities exist to standardize surgical practice to better align with evidence supporting the use of mesh in the management of these hernias.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Placement of prosthetic mesh during ventral and incisional hernia repair has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative hernia recurrence. Consequently, multiple consensus guidelines recommend the use of mesh for ventral hernias of any size. However, the extent to which real-world practice patterns reflect these recommendations is unclear.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry (MSQC-HR) to identify patients undergoing clean ventral or incisional hernia repair between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was mesh use. We used two-step hierarchical logistic regression modeling with empirical Bayes estimates to evaluate the association of hospital-level mesh use with patient, operative, and hernia characteristics.
RESULTS
A total of 5262 patients underwent ventral and incisional hernia repair at 65 hospitals with a mean age of 53.8 (14.5) years, 2292 (43.6%) females, and a mean hernia width of 3.2 (3.4) cm. Mean hospital volume was 81 (49) cases. Mesh was used in 4098 (77.9%) patients. At the patient level, hernia width and surgical approach were significantly associated with mesh use. Specifically, mesh use was 6.2% (95% CI 4.8-7.5%) more likely with each additional centimeter of hernia width and 28.0% (95% CI 26.1-29.8%) more likely for minimally invasive repair compared to open repair. At the hospital level, there was wide variation in mesh use, ranging from 38.0% (95% CI 31.5-44.9%) to 96.4% (95% CI 95.3-97.2%). Hospital-level mesh use was not associated with differences in hernia size (β = - 0.003, P = 0.978), surgical approach (β = - 1.109, P = 0.414), or any other patient factors.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite strong evidence supporting the use of mesh in ventral and incisional hernia repair, there is substantial variation in mesh use between hospitals that is not explained by differences in patient characteristics or operative approach. This suggests that opportunities exist to standardize surgical practice to better align with evidence supporting the use of mesh in the management of these hernias.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35851814
doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09357-w
pii: 10.1007/s00464-022-09357-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1501-1507Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343(6):392–398
doi: 10.1056/NEJM200008103430603
pubmed: 10933738
Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F (2016) Long-term recurrence and complications associated with elective incisional hernia repair. JAMA 316(15):1575–1582
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.15217
pubmed: 27750295
Kaufmann R, Halm JA, Eker HH et al (2018) Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 391(10123):860–869
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30298-8
pubmed: 29459021
Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC et al (2014) Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 149(5):415–421
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5014
pubmed: 24554114
Arroyo A, Garcia P, Perez F, Andreu J, Candela F, Calpena R (2001) Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 88(10):1321–1323
doi: 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01893.x
pubmed: 11578284
Shankar DA, Itani KMF, O’Brien WJ, Sanchez VM (2017) Factors associated with long-term outcomes of umbilical hernia repair. JAMA Surg 152(5):461–466
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5052
pubmed: 28122076
pmcid: 5831449
Henriksen NA, Montgomery A, Kaufmann R 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
Liang MK, Holihan JL, Itani K et al (2017) Ventral hernia management: expert consensus guided by systematic review. Ann Surg 265(1):80–89
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701
pubmed: 28009730
Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Petro CC et al (2022) Biologic vs synthetic mesh for single-stage repair of contaminated ventral hernias: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.1553
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.1553
pubmed: 36223140
pmcid: 8771431
Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J (2011) The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 104(12):510–520
doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
pubmed: 22179294
pmcid: 3241518
Kaoutzanis C, Leichtle SW, Mouawad NJ et al (2015) Risk factors for postoperative wound infections and prolonged hospitalization after ventral/incisional hernia repair. Hernia 19(1):113–123
doi: 10.1007/s10029-013-1155-y
pubmed: 24030572
Hawn MT, Snyder CW, Graham LA, Gray SH, Finan KR, Vick CC (2011) Hospital-level variability in incisional hernia repair technique affects patient outcomes. Surgery 149(2):185–191
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.001
pubmed: 21238712
Howard R, Ehlers A, Delaney L et al (2021) Leveraging a statewide quality collaborative to understand population-level hernia care. Am J Surg 222:1010
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.05.013
pubmed: 34090661
Healy MA, Regenbogen SE, Kanters AE et al (2017) Surgeon variation in complications with minimally invasive and open colectomy: results from the Michigan surgical quality collaborative. JAMA Surg 152(9):860–867
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1527
pubmed: 28614551
pmcid: 5710462
Dimick JB, Ghaferi AA, Osborne NH, Ko CY, Hall BL (2012) Reliability adjustment for reporting hospital outcomes with surgery. Ann Surg 255(4):703–707
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824b46ff
pubmed: 22388108
Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Birkmeyer JD (2010) Ranking hospitals on surgical mortality: the importance of reliability adjustment. Health Serv Res 45(6 Pt 1):1614–1629
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01158.x
pubmed: 20722747
pmcid: 2976775
Lussiez A, Eton R, Anderson M et al (2021) Heterogeneity in surgical quality improvement in Michigan. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005282
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005282
pubmed: 35129495
Delaney LD, Kattapuram M, Haidar JA et al (2021) The impact of surgeon adherence to preoperative optimization of hernia repairs. J Surg Res 264:8–15
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.01.044
pubmed: 33744776
Osborne NH, Ko CY, Upchurch GR Jr, Dimick JB (2011) The impact of adjusting for reliability on hospital quality rankings in vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg 53(1):1–5
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.08.031
pubmed: 21093202
Gray SH, Vick CC, Graham LA, Finan KR, Neumayer LA, Hawn MT (2008) Variation in mesh placement for ventral hernia repair: an opportunity for process improvement? Am J Surg 196(2):201–206
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.09.041
pubmed: 18513688
Kohler 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):121–126 (discussion 127)
doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2765-y
pubmed: 25217109
Earle DB, McLellan JA (2013) Repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Surg Clin N Am 93(5):1057–1089
doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2013.06.017
pubmed: 24035076
Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Cowan JA Jr, Lipsett PA, Stanley JC, Upchurch GR Jr (2003) Variation in postoperative complication rates after high-risk surgery in the United States. Surgery 134(4):534–540
doi: 10.1016/S0039-6060(03)00273-3
pubmed: 14605612
McCulloch P, Nagendran M, Campbell WB et al (2013) Strategies to reduce variation in the use of surgery. Lancet 382(9898):1130–1139
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61216-7
pubmed: 24075053
Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2009) Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med 361(14):1368–1375
doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0903048
pubmed: 19797283
Bennett-Guerrero E, Zhao Y, O’Brien SM et al (2010) Variation in use of blood transfusion in coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA 304(14):1568–1575
doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1406
pubmed: 20940382
Vu JV, Gunaseelan V, Krapohl GL et al (2019) Surgeon utilization of minimally invasive techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a population-based study. Surg Endosc 33(2):486–493
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6322-x
pubmed: 29987572
Nathan H, Dimick JB (2017) Medicare’s shift to mandatory alternative payment models: why surgeons should care. JAMA Surg 152(2):125–126
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4005
pubmed: 27893025
Howard R, Hallway A, Santos-Parker J et al (2019) Optimizing postoperative opioid prescribing through quality-based reimbursement. JAMA Netw Open 2(9):e1911619
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11619
pubmed: 31532512
pmcid: 6752089
Jha AK (2017) Public reporting of surgical outcomes: surgeons, hospitals, or both? JAMA Forum Arch 318:1429
Sheetz KH, Englesbe MJ (2020) Expanding the quality collaborative model as a blueprint for higher-value care. JAMA Health Forum 1(5):e200413–e200413
doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0413
pubmed: 36218502
AlMarzooqi R, Petro C, Tish S et al (2020) Patient perceptions on mesh use in hernia repair: a prospective, questionnaire-based study. Surgery 167(4):751–756
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.12.005
pubmed: 32061401
Smith ME, Wells EE, Friese CR, Krein SL, Ghaferi AA (2018) Interpersonal and organizational dynamics are key drivers of failure to rescue. Health Aff (Millwood) 37(11):1870–1876
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0704
pubmed: 30395494