Dataset Information

Wide variation in surgical techniques to repair incisional hernias: a survey of practice patterns among general surgeons.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The purpose of this research was to examine the self-reported practice patterns of Canadian general surgeons regarding the elective repair of incisional hernias.

Methods

A mail survey was sent to all general surgeons in Canada. Data were collected regarding surgeon training, years in practice, practice setting and management of incisional hernias. Surgeons were asked to describe their usual surgical approach for a patient with a midline incisional hernia and a 10 × 6 cm fascial defect.

Results

Of the 1876 surveys mailed out 555 (30%) were returned and 483 surgeons indicated that they perform incisional hernia repair. The majority (62%) have been in practice > 10 years and 73% regularly repair incisional hernias. In response to the clinical scenario of a patient with an incisional hernia, 74% indicated that they would perform an open repair and 18% would perform a laparoscopic repair. Ninety eight percent of surgeons would use mesh, 73% would perform primary fascial closure and 47% would perform a component separation. The most common locations for mesh placement were intraperitoneal (46%) and retrorectus/preperitoneal (48%). The most common repair, which was reported by 37% of surgeons, was an open operation, with mesh, with primary fascial closure and a component separation.

Conclusions

While almost all surgeons who perform incisional hernia repairs would use permanent mesh, there was substantial variation reported in surgical approach, mesh location, fascial closure and use of component separation techniques. It is unclear how this variability may impact healthcare resources and patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: MacDonald S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8145827 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Incisional hernias are a common complication of abdominal surgery and can be defined as gaps in the wall through which abdominal contents can come through. They can cause patients significant pain, affect body image and also complications, including further major abdominal surgery. This study aims to compare two methods of closing abdominal wounds in the midline. There is the traditional technique of mass closure, involving all layers of the abdominal wall being closed symmetrically at regular points along the wound, and the Hughes repair, which involves closing all layers of the abdominal wall being closed at regular points in a near and far distribution (i.e two sutures close to the midline and two sutures further apart). The idea of the Hughes repair is to distribute tension of the suture closing along different points in the wound and therefore reducing the rate of 'cut through' and development of hernias. Who can participate? Patients must be 18 or over, and receive surgical treatment for colorectal cancer which requires a midline incision of 5 cm or more. What does the study involve? Patients who agree to take part in the study will be invited to consent to take part in the study. This study aims to compare two methods of closing abdominal wounds in the midline. The patients are randomly allocated to mass closure or Hughes repair. At the end of the study we will compare the two groups for pain, body image concerns and also complications. What are the possible benefits and risk of participating? There will be no direct benefits to those taking part. There should be benefits to future patients undergoing abdominal surgery as we think that the Hughes Repair will help to prevent condition that causes significant problems for patients. The patients we have selected to be part of the study will be undergoing CT scans as part of their normal follow up for colorectal cancer so there is no additional radiation exposure and they will also be routinely followed up as standard in all hospitals, so there is no additional time expenditure for patients or expense for the NHS. The abdomen closure techniques to be used in the study trial are already used in surgery so there is no danger to patients. Where will the study run from? The study has been set up to run from the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, involving the Welsh Barbers Research Group. Swansea Clinical Trials Unit are conducting the trial on behalf of sponsor Cardiff & Vale University Health Board. Participating centres will be UK wide. When is the study starting and how long is it expected to run for? Feasibility phase recruited from October 2013 till February 2014. The pilot phase that will run directly into the main phase started in August 2014 and is expected to recruit until February 2018. Who is funding the study? The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (UK) Who is the main contact? Professor Jared Torkington HART@wales.nhs.uk

Project description:ObjectivesIncisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial.Design and settingA feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery.ParticipantsPatients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer.InterventionsComparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer.Primary and secondary outcomesA 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used.ResultsA total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns.ConclusionsThe feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee.Trial registration numberISRCTN 25616490.

Project description:Background Owing to important differences in surgical technique, laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal (ICA) compared to extracorporeal (ECA) anastomotic technique may result in improved patient outcomes. We aimed to compare both techniques according to incisional hernias and other pertinent perioperative characteristics, post-operative complications, and oncologic quality markers. Methods All adult patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomies between 2015 and 2020 at a single institution were included. ICA and ECA techniques were compared based on selected outcomes using univariable and multivariable statistical analyses, as appropriate. Subgroup analyses were restricted to patients with neoplastic indications for surgery and non-urgent operations. Results A total of 517 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 139 (26.9%) underwent ICA and 378 (73.1%) underwent ECA. ICA and ECA patients had similar baseline characteristics. At two years of follow-up, a lower proportion of ICA patients developed a hernia at the extraction incision (1.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.02) and ICA was associated with an 80% reduction in extraction incision hernias (aHR 0.20, p = 0.03). These results were stable through subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Median operative time was longer in the ICA group (186 min vs. 135 min, p < 0.001), but the gap in operative time narrowed during the study period. Median length of stay was one calendar day shorter in the ICA group (3 days vs. 4 days, p = 0.007) and ICA was associated with a 13% decrease in the length of stay (aRR 0.87, p = 0.02). The incidence of superficial wound infections, anastomotic leaks and re-interventions was lower in ICA patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. 90-day unscheduled visits, readmissions, and mortalities were similar across both groups, as were oncologic outcomes. Conclusion Laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal anastomoses are associated with a reduction in incisional hernias and shorter hospital lengths of stay without compromising on patient safety or oncologic principles. Graphical abstract Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09585-0.

Project description:Incisional hernias are common complications of midline closure following abdominal surgery and cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life and increased health care costs. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. This theoretically distributes the load along the incision length as well as across it. There is evidence to suggest that this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared the Hughes Repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation following a midline incision.This is a 1:1 randomised controlled trial comparing two suture techniques for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. Full ethical approval has been gained (Wales REC 3, MREC 12/WA/0374). Eight hundred patients will be randomised from approximately 20 general surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic (more than a 5-cm midline incision) surgery for colorectal cancer, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18 years, those having mesh inserted or undergoing musculofascial flap closure of the perineal defect in abdominoperineal wound closure, and those unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised intraoperatively to either the Hughes Repair or standard mass closure. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year as assessed by standardised clinical examination. The secondary outcomes include quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, cost-utility analysis, incidence of complete abdominal wound dehiscence and C-POSSUM scores. The incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year, assessed by computerised tomography, will form a tertiary outcome.A feasibility phase has been completed. The results of the study will be used to inform current and future practice and potentially reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation following midline incisions.ISRCTN 25616490 . Registered on 1 January 2012.

Project description:IntroductionThe novel coronavirus disease has had significant impact on healthcare globally. Knowledge of this virus is evolving, definitive care is not yet known and mortality is increasing. We assessed its initial impact on paediatric surgical practice in Nigeria, creating a benchmark for recommendations and future reference.MethodsSurvey of 120 paediatric surgeons from 50 centres to assess sociodemographics and specific domains of impact of COVID-19 on their services and training in Nigeria. Valid responses were represented as categorical data and presented in percentages. Duplicate submissions for centres were excluded by combining and taking the mean of responses from centres with multiple respondents.ResultsResponse rate was 74 (61%). Forty-six (92%) centres had suspended elective surgeries. All centres continued emergency surgeries but volume reduced in March by 31%. Eleven (22%) centres reported 13 suspended elective cases presenting as emergencies in March, accounting for 3% of total emergency surgeries. Twelve (24%) centres adopted new modalities for managing selected surgical conditions: non-operative reduction of intussusception in 1 (2%), antibiotic management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in 5 (10%) and more conservative management of trauma and replacement of laparoscopic appendectomy with open surgery in 3 (6%), respectively. Low perception of adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) was reported in 35 (70%) centres. Forty (80%) centres did not offer telemedicine for patients' follow-up. Twenty-nine (58%) centres had suspended academic training. Perception of safety to operate was low in 37 (50%) respondents, indifferent in 24% and high in 26%.ConclusionMajority of paediatric surgical centres reported cessation of elective surgeries while continuing emergencies. There was, however, an acute decline in the volume of emergency surgeries. Adequate PPE needs to be provided and preparations towards handling backlog of elective surgeries once the pandemic recedes. Further study is planned to more conclusively understand the full impact of this pandemic on children's surgery.

Project description:BackgroundThe decision about which type of general anesthetic to administer is typically made by the clinical team without patient engagement. This study examined patients' preferences, experiences, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and perceived social norms about anesthesia and about engaging in the decision regarding general anesthetic choice with their clinician.MethodsWe conducted a survey in the United States, sent to a panel of surgical patients through Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) from March 2022 through May 2022. Questions were developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and validated measures were used when available. A patient partner who had experienced both intravenous and inhaled anesthesia contributed to the development and refinement of the questions.ResultsA total of 806 patients who received general anesthesia for an elective procedure in the last five years completed the survey. 43% of respondents preferred a patient-led decision making role and 28% preferred to share decision making with their clinical team, yet only 7.8% reported being engaged in full shared decision making about the anesthesia they received. Intraoperative awareness, pain, nausea, vomiting and quickly returning to work and usual household activities were important to respondents. Waking up in the middle of surgery was the most commonly reported concern, despite this experience being reported only 8% of the time. Most patients (65%) who searched for information about general anesthesia noted that it took a lot of effort to find the information, and 53% agreed to feeling frustrated during the search.ConclusionsMost patients prefer a patient-led or shared decision making process when it comes to their anesthetic care and want to be engaged in the decision. However, only a small percentage of patients reported being fully engaged in the decision. Further studies should inform future shared decision-making tools, informed consent materials, educational materials and framing of anesthetic choices for patients so that they are able to make a choice regarding the anesthetic they receive.