Mesh overlap for ventral hernia repair in current practice.

INTRODUCTION: Sufficient overlap of mesh beyond the borders of a ventral hernia helps prevent hernia recurrence. Guidelines from the European Hernia Society and American Hernia Society recommend ≥ 2 cm overlap for open repair of < 1-cm hernias, ≥ 3-cm overlap for open repair of 1-4-cm hernias, ≥ 5-cm overlap for open repair of > 4-cm hernias, and ≥ 5-cm overlap for all laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs. We evaluated whether current practice reflects this guidance. METHODS: We used the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry to evaluate patients who underwent elective ventral and umbilical hernia repair between 2020 and 2022. Mesh overlap was calculated as [(width of mesh - width of hernia)/2]. The main outcome was "sufficient overlap," defined based on published EHS and AHS guidelines. Explanatory variables included patient, operative, and hernia characteristics. The main analysis was a multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between explanatory variables and sufficient mesh overlap. RESULTS: 4178 patients underwent ventral hernia repair with a mean age of 55.2 (13.9) years, 1739 (41.6%) females, mean body mass index (BMI) of 33.1 (7.2) kg/m2, and mean hernia width of 3.7 (3.4) cm. Mean mesh overlap was 3.7 (2.5) cm and ranged from - 5.5 to 21.4 cm. Only 1074 (25.7%) ventral hernia repairs had sufficient mesh overlap according to published guidelines. Operative factors associated with increased odds of sufficient overlap included myofascial release (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.35 [95% CI 4.07-7.03]), minimally invasive approach (aOR 1.86 [95% CI 1.60-2.17]), and onlay mesh location (aOR 1.31 [95% CI 1.07-1.59]). Patient factors associated with increased odds of sufficient overlap included prior hernia repair (aOR 1.59 [95% CI 1.32-1.92]). CONCLUSION: Although sufficient mesh overlap is recommended to prevent ventral hernia recurrence, only a quarter of ventral hernia repairs in a state-wide cohort of patients had sufficient overlap according to evidence-based guidelines. Factors strongly associated with sufficient overlap included myofascial release, mesh type, and laparoscopic repair.

Trends in Surgical Technique and Outcomes of Ventral Hernia Repair in The United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe national trends in surgical technique and rates of reoperation for recurrence for patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR) in the United States. BACKGROUND: Surgical options for VHR, including minimally invasive approaches, mesh implantation, and myofascial release, have expanded considerably over the past 2 decades. Their dissemination and impact on population-level outcomes is not well characterized. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective, inpatient umbilical, ventral, or incisional hernia repair between 2007 and 2015. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the adjusted proportion of patients who remained free from reoperation for hernia recurrence up to 5 years after surgery. RESULTS: One hundred fort-one thousand two hundred sixty-one patients underwent VHR during the study period. Between 2007 and 2018, the use of minimally invasive surgery increased from 2.1% to 22.2%, mesh use increased from 63.2% to 72.5%, and myofascial release increased from 1.8% to 16.3%. Overall, the 5-year incidence of reoperation for recurrence was 14.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.0%-14.1%]. Over time, patients were more likely to remain free from reoperation for hernia recurrence 5 years after surgery [2007-2009 reoperation-free survival: 84.9% (95% CI 84.8%-84.9%); 2010-2012 reoperation-free survival: 85.7% (95% CI 85.6%-85.7%); 2013-2015 reoperation-free survival: 87.8% (95% CI 87.7%-87.9%)]. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of ventral and incisional hernias has evolved in recent decades, with more patients undergoing minimally invasive repair, receiving mesh, and undergoing myofascial release. Although our analysis does not address causality, rates of reoperation for hernia recurrence improved slightly contemporaneous with changes in surgical technique.

Application of Component Separation and Short-Term Outcomes in Ventral Hernia Repairs.

INTRODUCTION: Component separation (CS) techniques have evolved in recent years. How surgeons apply the various CS techniques, anterior component separation (aCS) versus posterior component separation (pCS), by patient and hernia-specific factors remain unknown in the general population. Improving the quality of ventral hernia repair (VHR) on a large scale requires an understanding of current practice variations and how these variations ultimately affect patient care. In this study, we examine the application of CS techniques and the associated short-term outcomes while taking into consideration patient and hernia-specific factors. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a clinically rich statewide hernia registry, the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry, of persons older than 18 y who underwent VHR between January 2020 and July 2021. The exposure of interest was the use of CS. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of 30-d adverse events including any complication, emergency department visit, readmission, and reoperation. Our secondary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI). Multivariable logistic regression examined the association of CS use, 30-d adverse events, and SSI with patient-, hernia-, and operative-specific variables. We performed a sensitivity analysis evaluating for differences in application and outcomes of the posterior and aCS techniques. RESULTS: A total of 1319 patients underwent VHR, with a median age (interquartile range) of 55 y (22), 641 (49%) female patients, and a median body mass index of 32 (9) kg/m2. CS was used in 138 (11%) patients, of which 101 (73%) were pCS and 37 (27%) were aCS. Compared to patients without CS, patients undergoing a CS had larger median hernia widths (2.5 cm (range 0.01-23 cm) versus 8 cm (1-30 cm), P < 0.001). Of the CS cases, 49 (36%) performed in hernias less than 6 cm in size. Following multivariate regression, factors independently associated with the use of a CS were diabetes (odds ratio [OR]: 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-3.36), previous hernia repair (OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.20-2.96), hernia width (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.22-1.34), and an open approach (OR: 3.83, 95% CI: 2.24-6.53). Compared to patients not having a CS, use of a CS was associated with increased odds of 30-d adverse events (OR: 1.88 95% CI: 1.13-3.12) but was not associated with SSI (OR: 1.95, 95% CI: 0.74-4.63). Regression analysis demonstrated no differences in 30-d adverse events or SSI between the pCS and aCS techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first population-level report of patients undergoing VHR with concurrent posterior or aCS. These data suggest wide variation in the application of CS in VHR and raises a concern for potential overutilization in smaller hernias. Continued analysis of CS application and the associated outcomes, specifically recurrence, is necessary and underway.

Local anesthesia: a strategy for reducing surgical site infections?

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) contribute to increased morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization costs. A previously unidentified factor that may reduce SSIs is the use of local anesthesia. The objective of this study was to determine if the use of local anesthesia is independently associated with a lower incidence of SSIs compared to nonlocal anesthesia. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2007), we identified all patients undergoing surgical procedures that could be performed using local or general anesthesia, depending on the preference of the surgeon. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with the use of local anesthesia. Propensity matching was then used to match local and nonlocal anesthesia cases while controlling for patient and operative characteristics. SSI rates were compared using a χ(2) test. RESULTS: Of 111,683 patients, 1928 underwent local anesthesia; and in 109,755 cases the patients were given general anesthesia where a local anesthetic potentially could have used. In the unmatched analysis, patients with local anesthesia had a significantly lower incidence of SSIs than patients with nonlocal anesthesia (0.7 vs. 1.4%, P = 0.013). Similarly, after propensity matching, the incidence of SSIs in patients given local anesthesia was significantly lower than for that of patients given nonlocal anesthesia (0.8 vs. 1.4%, P = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Use of local anesthesia is independently associated with a lower incidence of SSIs. It may provide a safe, simple approach to reducing the number of SSIs.