Characterizing hernia centers in the United States: what defines a hernia center?

PURPOSE: A universal definition for what constitutes a hernia center does not exist. The purpose of this study was to characterize hernia centers in the United States by analyzing hernia centers and their non-hernia center counterparts. METHODS: A web-based search was conducted to identify defining features of hernia centers including faculty demographics and composition, research output, research funding, clinical trials, and website content. Hernia centers and non-hernia centers were compared. RESULTS: Most hernia centers (n = 36) are in urban areas (89%) and distributed evenly across regions of the United States. Hernia centers are associated with University program types (p = 0.001) while non-hernia centers are associated with University-Affiliate (p = 0.001) and Community (p = 0.02) program types. Hernia centers are associated with Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative participation (p = 0.01) and Center of Excellence by the Surgical Review Corporation certification (p = 0.005). Hernia centers are associated with presence of active clinical trials (p < 0.001) and number of clinical trials (p < 0.001). Hernia centers are associated with industry-sponsored trials (p < 0.001) but are not associated with NIH-sponsored trials. Fifty percent of hernia centers have PRS faculty. The vast majority of hernia center websites describe hernias treated (92%) and repair techniques (89%). The majority of hernia center mission statements emphasize an individualized care plan (61%) and multidisciplinary care (57%). Only 39% of websites and 17% of mission statements mention research. CONCLUSION: In the United States, hernia centers are clinically oriented, multidisciplinary surgical teams at predominantly urban, University programs that may use this title to attract patient referrals and industry sponsorship of clinical trials.

An evaluation of clinical and quality of life outcomes after ventral hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh.

PURPOSE: Despite continued efforts, recurrence after ventral hernia repair (VHR) remains a common problem. Biosynthetic Phasix™ (Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate, P4HB) mesh combines the durability of synthetic mesh with the bio-resistance of biologics. P4HB has shown promising early outcomes, but long-term data are lacking. We examine patients following VHR with P4HB with at least 3 years of follow-up to assess clinical and patient reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Adult patients (≥ 18 years old) undergoing VHR with P4HB mesh between 10/2015 and 01/2018 by a single surgeon were retrospectively identified. Patients with < 36 months of follow-up were excluded unless they had a documented recurrence. Clinical outcomes and quality of life using the Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey (HerQLes) were assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were included with a median age and body mass index of 61.2 and 31 kg/m2, respectively. Mesh was placed in the retromuscular (79%) and onlay (21%) planes with 1/3 of patients having hernias repaired in contaminated fields. There were no mesh infections, enterocutaneous fistulas, or mesh explantations. Nine patients (12.7%) developed recurrence at a median follow-up of 43.1 months [38.2-49.1]. Mesh plane, fixation technique, and Ventral Hernia Working Group were not associated with recurrence. Significant improvement in disease-specific PROs was observed and maintained at 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal clinical and quality of life outcomes after clean and contaminated VHR with P4HB are limited. Here, we conclude that P4HB is an effective and versatile mesh option for use in abdominal wall reinforcement.

Ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh in a contaminated field: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The use of mesh in ventral hernia repair becomes especially challenging when associated with a contaminated field. Permanent synthetic mesh use in this setting is currently debated and this discussion is yet to be resolved clinically or in the literature. We aim to systematically assess postoperative outcomes of non-absorbable synthetic mesh (NASM) used in ventral hernia repair in the setting of contamination. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library identified all articles from 2000-2020 that examined the use of NASM for ventral hernia repair in a contaminated field. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by means of pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Qualitative analysis was completed for all included studies using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Of 630 distinct publications and 104 requiring full review, this study included 17 articles published between 2007 and 2020. Meta-analysis demonstrated absorbable mesh was associated with more HR (OR 1.89, 1.15-3.12, p = 0.008), SSO (OR 1.43, 0.96-2.11, p = 0.087), SSI (OR 2.84, 1.85-4.35, p < 0.001), and unplanned reoperation (OR 1.99, 1.19-3.32, p = 0.009) compared to NASM. CONCLUSION: The use of NASM for ventral hernia repair in a contaminated field may be a safe alternative to absorbable mesh, as evidenced by lower rates of postoperative complications. This review counters the current clinical paradigm, and additional prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.