BACKGROUND: In 2003 the Dutch Guidelines for treatment of inguinal hernia (IH) were published. For treatment of IH in adults, the evidence-based guidelines recommend the use of a mesh repair technique. In order to be able to evaluate the effects of these guidelines, a baseline analysis of inguinal hernia surgery before the introduction of these guidelines had to be performed. The second analysis will be performed two years (January-March 2005) after the publication of the Guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To make an inventory of IH surgery in the Netherlands, before the introduction of guidelines for IH treatment, to serve as a baseline for future evaluation of the impact of the implementation of these guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was performed in 2003 using patient and operation charts including IH repairs performed in The Netherlands over a three-month period (January-March 2001). RESULTS: 97/133 (73%) hospitals cooperated with the study, generating data from a total of 4386 IH in 3979 patients (3284 adults, 695 children). Mesh techniques were used in 2839 (78%) adult inguinal hernias while 800 (22%) patients were treated with non-mesh techniques. 484 (14.7%) adult patients were operated on during the study period for a recurrent hernia from previous years. Early recurrence (<1 year) occurred in 2.2% of all patients. Wound infection was documented in 0.8% of all IH. The mortality rate was 0.1%. 1257 of the 3284 (38.3%) adults, and 566 of the 695 children (81.4%), were operated on in ambulatory care. CONCLUSIONS: In the episode prior to implementation of the Dutch evidence-based Guidelines for treatment of inguinal hernia, 2839 (78%) adult patients were treated with mesh repair and 484 (13.3%) patients were treated for a recurrent hernia.
BACKGROUND: In 2003 the Dutch Guidelines for treatment of inguinal hernia (IH) were published. For treatment of IH in adults, the evidence-based guidelines recommend the use of a mesh repair technique. In order to be able to evaluate the effects of these guidelines, a baseline analysis of inguinal hernia surgery before the introduction of these guidelines had to be performed. The second analysis will be performed two years (January-March 2005) after the publication of the Guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To make an inventory of IH surgery in the Netherlands, before the introduction of guidelines for IH treatment, to serve as a baseline for future evaluation of the impact of the implementation of these guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was performed in 2003 using patient and operation charts including IH repairs performed in The Netherlands over a three-month period (January-March 2001). RESULTS: 97/133 (73%) hospitals cooperated with the study, generating data from a total of 4386 IH in 3979 patients (3284 adults, 695 children). Mesh techniques were used in 2839 (78%) adult inguinal hernias while 800 (22%) patients were treated with non-mesh techniques. 484 (14.7%) adult patients were operated on during the study period for a recurrent hernia from previous years. Early recurrence (<1 year) occurred in 2.2% of all patients. Wound infection was documented in 0.8% of all IH. The mortality rate was 0.1%. 1257 of the 3284 (38.3%) adults, and 566 of the 695 children (81.4%), were operated on in ambulatory care. CONCLUSIONS: In the episode prior to implementation of the Dutch evidence-based Guidelines for treatment of inguinal hernia, 2839 (78%) adult patients were treated with mesh repair and 484 (13.3%) patients were treated for a recurrent hernia.
Authors: M Bay-Nielsen; H Kehlet; L Strand; J Malmstrøm; F H Andersen; P Wara; P Juul; T Callesen Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-10-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Leigh Neumayer; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Olga Jonasson; Robert Fitzgibbons; Dorothy Dunlop; James Gibbs; Domenic Reda; William Henderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carmen S S Latenstein; Floris M Thunnissen; Mitchell Harker; Stef Groenewoud; Mark W Noordenbos; Femke Atsma; Philip R de Reuver Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 2.102