Dataset Information

Patient-reported outcomes after incisional hernia repair.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are pivotal to evaluate the efficacy of surgical management. Debate persists on the optimal surgical technique to repair incisional hernias. Assessment of PROs can guide the selection of the best management of patients with incisional hernias. The objective of this cohort study was to present the PROs after incisional hernia repair at long term follow-up.

Methods

Patients with a history of incisional hernia repair were seen at the out-patient clinic to collect PROs. Patients were asked about the preoperative indication for repair and postoperative symptoms, such as pain, feelings of discomfort, and bulging of the abdominal wall. Additionally, degree of satisfaction was asked and Carolina Comfort Scales were completed.

Results

Two hundred and ten patients after incisional hernia repair were included with a median follow-up of 3.2 years. The main indication for incisional hernia repair was the presence of a bulge (60%). Other main reasons for repair were pain (19%) or discomfort (5%). One hundred and thirty-two patients (63%) reported that the overall status of their abdominal wall had improved after the operation. Postoperative symptoms were reported by 133 patients (63%), such as feelings of discomfort, pain and bulging. Twenty percent of patients reported that the overall status of their abdominal wall was the same, and 17% reported a worse status, compared to before the operation. Ten percent of the patients would not opt for operation in hindsight.

Conclusion

This study showed that a majority of the patients after incisional hernia repair still report pain or symptoms such as feelings of discomfort, pain, and bulging of the abdominal wall 3 years after surgery. Embedding patients' expectations and PROs in the preoperative counseling discussion is needed to improve decision-making in incisional hernia surgery.

SUBMITTER: van Veenendaal N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8613099 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh in the United States, there is no level I evidence comparing it with the traditional laparoscopic approach. This randomized clinical trial sought to demonstrate a clinical benefit to the robotic approach.ObjectiveTo determine whether robotic approach to ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh would result in less postoperative pain.Design, setting, and participantsA registry-based, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland, Ohio, completed between September 2017 and January 2020, with a minimum follow-up duration of 30 days. Two surgeons at 1 academic tertiary care hospital. Patients with primary or incisional midline ventral hernias of an anticipated width of 7 cm or less presenting in the elective setting and able to tolerate a minimally invasive repair.InterventionsPatients were randomized to a standardized laparoscopic or robotic ventral hernia repair with fascial closure and intraperitoneal mesh.Main outcomes and measuresThe trial was powered to detect a 30% difference in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) on the first postoperative day. Secondary end points included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity short form (3a), hernia-specific quality of life, operative time, wound morbidity, recurrence, length of stay, and cost.ResultsSeventy-five patients completed their minimally invasive hernia repair: 36 laparoscopic and 39 robotic. Baseline demographics and hernia characteristics were comparable. Robotic operations had a longer median operative time (146 vs 94 minutes; P < .001). There were 2 visceral injuries in each cohort but no full-thickness enterotomies or unplanned reoperations. There were no significant differences in NRS-11 scores preoperatively or on postoperative days 0, 1, 7, or 30. Specifically, median NRS-11 scores on the first postoperative day were the same (5 vs 5; P = .61). Likewise, postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 3a and hernia-specific quality-of-life scores, as well as length of stay and complication rates, were similar. The robotic platform adds cost (total cost ratio, 1.13 vs 0.97; P = .03), driven by the cost of additional operating room time (1.25 vs 0.85; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceLaparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh have comparable outcomes. The increased operative time and proportional cost of the robotic approach are not offset by a measurable clinical benefit.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03283982.

Project description:Importance:Ventral and incisional hernia repair (VIHR) is an extremely common operation, after which complications are also fairly common. A number of preoperative risk factors are known to contribute to increased complications after surgical repair; however, the individual relative association of these risk factors with adverse outcomes and increased spending is unclear. Quantifying the association of individual risk factors may help surgeons implement targeted surgical optimization, improve outcomes, and reduce spending. Objective:To identify the attributable association of modifiable risk factors for adverse outcomes after VIHR on outcomes and episode-of-care payments. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study was performed using a population-based sample of adult patients and episode spending data from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2018, from a statewide multipayer registry. A multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to examine the contribution of patient-specific risk factors to adverse outcomes. Attributable risk and population attributable risk fraction were calculated to estimate the additional spending attributable to individual risk factors. Data were analyzed from April 2018 to September 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Any complications, serious complication, discharge not to home, 30-day emergency department utilization, and 30-day readmission. Episode-of-care spending was calculated for these outcomes. Results:This study included 22?664 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 55 [44-64] years; 10?496 [46.3%] women) undergoing VIHR with identified significant preoperative risk factors. Fourth-quartile body mass index (BMI), calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared and defined as a mean (SD) BMI of 43 (6), was associated with increased risk of any complication (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.30-2.06; P?<?.001) and serious complication (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.22-2.31; P?=?.002). Insulin-dependent diabetes was associated with increased risk of any complication (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73; P?=?.03), serious complication (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.08-2.12; P?=?.02), discharge not to home (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98; P?=?.005), and 30-day readmission (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.32-2.14; P?<?.001). Median (interquartile range) additional episode spending for any complication was $9934 ($9224-$11?851), of which $1304 ($1208-$1552) was attributable to fourth-quartile BMI. Median (interquartile range) additional episode spending for a serious complication was $26?648 ($20?632-$33?166), of which $3638 ($2827-$4544) was attributable to fourth-quartile BMI, $650 ($495-$796) was attributable to insulin-dependent diabetes, and $567 ($433-$696) was attributable to unhealthy alcohol use. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cross-sectional study, modifiable risk factors, such as obesity, insulin-dependent diabetes, and unhealthy alcohol use, were associated with adverse outcomes after VIHR. These factors were significantly associated with increased health care spending; therefore, preoperative optimization may improve outcomes and decrease episode-of-care costs.