Intraperitoneal versus retromuscular mesh placement for open incisional hernias: an analysis of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia repair with mesh improves long-term outcomes, but the ideal mesh position remains unclear. This study compared intraperitoneal versus retromuscular or preperitoneal sublay (RPS) mesh positions for open incisional hernia repairs. METHODS: All patients who had elective open incisional hernia repairs were identified retrospectively in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative database. The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day surgical-site infection (SSI). Other outcomes of interest included 30-day surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), hernia-related quality-of-life survey (HerQLes) scores and long-term recurrence. A logistic model was used to generate propensity scores for mesh position using several clinically relevant co-variables. Regression models adjusting for propensity score and baseline characteristics were developed to assess the effect of mesh placement. RESULTS: A total of 4211 patients were included in the study population: 587 had intraperitoneal mesh and 3624 had RPS mesh. Analysis with propensity score adjustment provided no evidence for differences in SSOPI (odds ratio (OR) 0·79, 95 per cent c.i. 0·49 to 1·26) and SSI (OR 0·91, 0·50 to 1·67) rates or HerQLes scores at 30 days (OR 1·20, 0·79 to 1·82), or recurrence rates (hazard ratio 1·28, 0·90 to 1·82). CONCLUSION: Mesh position had no effect on short- or long-term outcomes, including SSOPI and SSI rates, HerQLes scores and long-term recurrence rates.

ANTECEDENTES: La reparación de una eventración con malla mejora los resultados a largo plazo, pero sigue sin estar definida cuál es la posición ideal de colocación de la malla. Este estudio comparó los resultados de la reparación abierta de una eventración con malla en posición intraperitoneal versus retromuscular o preperitoneal (retromuscular or preperitoneal sublay, RPS). MÉTODOS: Se identificaron de forma retrospectiva todos los pacientes a los que se reparó una eventración por via abierta en el Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. La variable principal fue la tasa de infección de la herida quirúrgica (surgical site infections, SSI) a los 30 días. Se analizaron también las incidencias acaecidas en la herida que hubieran precisado algún tratamiento (surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention, SSOPI) dentro de los 30 días postintervención, los resultados de una encuesta de calidad de vida relacionada con la hernia (HerQles) y la recidiva a largo plazo. Se utilizó un modelo logístico con diferentes covariables clínicas relevantes para generar puntajes de propensión con respecto a la posición de malla. Para analizar el efecto de la posición de la malla, se desarrollaron diferentes modelos de regresión ajustados por las características basales y el puntaje de propensión. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron en el estudio 4.211 pacientes, 587 con malla intraperitoneal y 3.624 con malla RPS. El análisis con ajuste por puntaje de propensión no mostró diferencias en SSOPI (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 0,624, i.c. del 95% 0,364-1,07), SSI (OR 0,927, i.c. del 95% 0,475-1,81), puntuación HerQles a 30 días (OR 1,19, i.c. del 95% 0,79-1,8) o en el índice de recidivas (OR 1,28, i.c. del 95% 0,897-1,82). CONCLUSIÓN: La posición de la colocación de la malla no tuvo efecto en los resultados a corto o largo plazo, incluidas las tasas de SSOPI y SSI, las puntuaciones de HerQles y la tasa de recidiva a largo plazo.

Is concomitant cholecystectomy safe during abdominal wall reconstruction? An AHSQC analysis.

PURPOSE: Unlike routine ventral hernia repair, abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) can results in large pieces of mesh and extensive manipulation of the intra-abdominal contents, rendering subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy challenging. This study addresses the additional wound morbidity of concomitant cholecystectomy. METHODS: The Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) was retrospectively reviewed and logistic regression modeling was used to control for multiple covariates. Patients that underwent open AWR with cholecystectomy were compared to a similar group of patients undergoing uncomplicated, open, clean, AWR alone. RESULTS: 130 patients undergoing concomitant cholecystectomy were compared to a control group of 6440 patients. The addition of a cholecystectomy did not cause a significant change in wound morbidity (SSI: p = 0.16; SSOPI: p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: This study noted that a concomitant cholecystectomy does not increase the wound morbidity as compared to an uncomplicated, clean, AWR. This provides support for consideration of routine cholecystectomy in patients with cholelithiasis undergoing AWR.

Is there an advantage to laparoscopy over open repair of primary umbilical hernias in obese patients? An analysis of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC).

PURPOSE: The most common techniques used to repair umbilical hernias are open and laparoscopic. As the obesity epidemic in the United States is growing, it is essential to understand how this morbidity affects umbilical hernia repairs. This study compares laparoscopic versus open umbilical hernia repairs in obese patients. METHODS: All patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 who underwent elective, open or laparoscopic repair of a primary umbilical hernia with mesh were identified from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC). A retrospective review of the prospectively collected data was conducted. Outcomes of interest included surgical site infections (SSI), surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), hernia-related quality-of-life survey (HerQles), and long-term recurrence. A logistic regression model was used to generate propensity scores. RESULTS: Of 1507 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 322 were laparoscopic, and 1185 were open cases. The laparoscopic group had higher mean BMI (37 ± 6 vs. 35 ± 5 kg/m2 , P < 0.001 ) and mean hernia width (3 cm ± 1 vs. 2 cm ± 2, P < 0.001). Using a propensity score model, we controlled for several clinically relevant covariates. Propensity score adjustment showed no differences in the 30-day HerQles score (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58-1.49), SSI (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.52-4.77), SSOPI (OR 2.85, 95% CI 0.84-9.62) or hernia recurrence (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.50-1.49). CONCLUSION: In obese patients with primary umbilical hernias, there is likely no benefit to laparoscopy over open umbilical hernia repair with mesh with regard to wound morbidity. Although, the long-term recurrence also showed no difference between these two approaches, overall follow up was lacking.

Comparing 30-day outcomes between different mesh fixation techniques in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.

PURPOSE: The association of postoperative patient-reported outcomes and type of mesh fixation during minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair has not been well characterized. We aimed to compare the 30-day quality of life outcomes between various mesh fixation techniques utilizing the AHSQC prospective registry. METHODS: All minimally invasive inguinal hernias with completed 30-day follow-up were abstracted from the AHSQC, excluding patients with primary indication for surgery being chronic groin pain. Mesh fixation was categorized as (1) atraumatic fixation (AF) (2) traumatic non-suture (TNS), (3) traumatic suture (TS). Our outcomes of interest were pain at site at 30-day and EuraHS quality of life assessment. RESULTS: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 864 patients had surgical site pain and quality of life outcomes reported; 253 (AF), 451 (TNS), and 160 (TS). After adjusting for identified confounders, there was no statistically significant difference between any fixation method when evaluating pain as a binary variable (Yes/No). However, when looking at the EuraHS evaluation for pain and quality of life outcomes, AF was associated with better scores than both TNS and TS fixation in the cosmetic, restrictions, and overall EuraHS domains. AF was only better than TS fixation in the pain domain. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that AF had a significantly improved hernia-specific quality of life in all domains at 30-days postoperatively. We also identified that pain as a binary variable is inadequate for its states purpose. Thus, the overall well-being and morbidity should be taken into account when evaluating hernia patients postoperatively.

Review of inguinal hernia repair techniques within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.

PURPOSE: As the ultimate procedure which each surgeon decides to perform for a unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia remains controversial, we queried the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) database to report the collective experience of surgeons in the United States whom contribute to AHSQC to provide a view of the surgical approaches performed. METHODS: The AHSQC data registry was queried for all adult patients who underwent a primary, unilateral, elective, inguinal hernia repair. A retrospective review was conducted to analyze patient demographics, hernia characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes. Our main outcomes of interest were 30-day surgical site infections (SSI), surgical site occurrences (SSO), 30-day patient-reported outcomes, and 1-year recurrence rates. RESULTS: 4613 patients met inclusion criteria. 1925 were repaired using an open technique (42%), 1841 were repaired using a laparoscopic technique (40%), and 847 were repaired using a robotic technique (18%). The Shouldice technique remains the most common tissue-based repair performed in the AHSQC. The Lichtenstein repair is the most common open mesh-based repair. Minimally invasive approaches to unilateral inguinal hernia repairs remained very common in our series. The robotic approach accounted for nearly one-third of the minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs. CONCLUSION: In general, all of the repair techniques reported similar and low rates of 30-day complications. The AHSQC continues on-going efforts to improve long-term follow-up and looks forward to addressing long-term outcomes such as recurrence and chronic pain with increasing data acquisition.