Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Variation in approach for small (< 2 cm) ventral hernias across a statewide quality improvement collaborative.
Ehlers, Anne P; Howard, Ryan; Delaney, Lia D; Solano, Quintin; Telem, Dana A.
Afiliação
  • Ehlers AP; Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, SPC 5343, 2210 Taubman Center, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. aehlers@med.umich.edu.
  • Howard R; Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. aehlers@med.umich.edu.
  • Delaney LD; Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, SPC 5343, 2210 Taubman Center, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
  • Solano Q; Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
  • Telem DA; University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Surg Endosc ; 36(9): 6760-6766, 2022 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35854123
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Operative technique for hernias < 2 cm is highly controversial. Limited data exist about this practice at a population level. Within this context we sought to describe practice patterns and use of mesh among patients undergoing repair of small hernias within the setting of a statewide quality improvement collaborative.

METHODS:

Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hernia repair in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry was conducted. Patients who underwent repair of a hernia < 2 cm from January 1, 2020 to July 8, 2021 were included. Descriptive statistics were performed to describe cohort characteristics and compare patients who did and did not receive mesh. Logistic regression was performed to estimate the odds of receiving mesh after accounting for patient and hernia characteristics.

RESULTS:

Among 570 patients, 56.1% (n = 320) had mesh placed. Most repairs were conducted via open approach (n = 437, 76.5%). Patients who received mesh were older (51.8 vs 48.6, p < 0.01), had higher BMI (31.7 vs 30.0, p < 0.01), were more often ASA Class III (35.9% vs 24.4%, p < 0.01), more often had diabetes (15.9% vs 10.0%, 0.04) and hypertension (44.7% vs 30.4%, p < 0.01), and had higher hernia width (1.2 cm vs 1.0 cm, p < 0.0001). After adjustment, ASA Class III (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.31-8.89), current smoking status (aOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.04-3.18), higher mean hernia width (aOR 5.68, 95% CI 2.97-10.85), and laparoscopic (aOR 12.9, 95% CI 5.02-32.96) or robotic (aOR 24.3, 95% CI 6.96-84.96) were associated with mesh use, while COPD (aOR 0.36, 95% CI 0.07-0.96) was associated with less mesh use.

CONCLUSIONS:

Use of mesh for small hernias remains controversial. We found that patients who had mesh placed at the time of surgery were potentially patients at higher risk for complications. The decision to use mesh may be driven by patient-related factors that predispose to complications and operative recurrence rather than evidence indicating that it is superior in this population.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Laparoscopia / Hérnia Ventral Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Laparoscopia / Hérnia Ventral Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article