Ryan Howard1,2, Anne Ehlers1,2, Lia Delaney3, Quintin Solano3, Mary Shen1,2, Michael Englesbe1,4, Justin Dimick1,5, Dana Telem6,7. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, 2926 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr SPC 5331, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5331, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. dtelem@med.umich.edu. 7. Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, 2926 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr SPC 5331, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5331, USA. dtelem@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Placement of prosthetic mesh during ventral and incisional hernia repair has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative hernia recurrence. Consequently, multiple consensus guidelines recommend the use of mesh for ventral hernias of any size. However, the extent to which real-world practice patterns reflect these recommendations is unclear. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry (MSQC-HR) to identify patients undergoing clean ventral or incisional hernia repair between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was mesh use. We used two-step hierarchical logistic regression modeling with empirical Bayes estimates to evaluate the association of hospital-level mesh use with patient, operative, and hernia characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 5262 patients underwent ventral and incisional hernia repair at 65 hospitals with a mean age of 53.8 (14.5) years, 2292 (43.6%) females, and a mean hernia width of 3.2 (3.4) cm. Mean hospital volume was 81 (49) cases. Mesh was used in 4098 (77.9%) patients. At the patient level, hernia width and surgical approach were significantly associated with mesh use. Specifically, mesh use was 6.2% (95% CI 4.8-7.5%) more likely with each additional centimeter of hernia width and 28.0% (95% CI 26.1-29.8%) more likely for minimally invasive repair compared to open repair. At the hospital level, there was wide variation in mesh use, ranging from 38.0% (95% CI 31.5-44.9%) to 96.4% (95% CI 95.3-97.2%). Hospital-level mesh use was not associated with differences in hernia size (β = - 0.003, P = 0.978), surgical approach (β = - 1.109, P = 0.414), or any other patient factors. CONCLUSIONS: Despite strong evidence supporting the use of mesh in ventral and incisional hernia repair, there is substantial variation in mesh use between hospitals that is not explained by differences in patient characteristics or operative approach. This suggests that opportunities exist to standardize surgical practice to better align with evidence supporting the use of mesh in the management of these hernias.
BACKGROUND: Placement of prosthetic mesh during ventral and incisional hernia repair has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative hernia recurrence. Consequently, multiple consensus guidelines recommend the use of mesh for ventral hernias of any size. However, the extent to which real-world practice patterns reflect these recommendations is unclear. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry (MSQC-HR) to identify patients undergoing clean ventral or incisional hernia repair between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was mesh use. We used two-step hierarchical logistic regression modeling with empirical Bayes estimates to evaluate the association of hospital-level mesh use with patient, operative, and hernia characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 5262 patients underwent ventral and incisional hernia repair at 65 hospitals with a mean age of 53.8 (14.5) years, 2292 (43.6%) females, and a mean hernia width of 3.2 (3.4) cm. Mean hospital volume was 81 (49) cases. Mesh was used in 4098 (77.9%) patients. At the patient level, hernia width and surgical approach were significantly associated with mesh use. Specifically, mesh use was 6.2% (95% CI 4.8-7.5%) more likely with each additional centimeter of hernia width and 28.0% (95% CI 26.1-29.8%) more likely for minimally invasive repair compared to open repair. At the hospital level, there was wide variation in mesh use, ranging from 38.0% (95% CI 31.5-44.9%) to 96.4% (95% CI 95.3-97.2%). Hospital-level mesh use was not associated with differences in hernia size (β = - 0.003, P = 0.978), surgical approach (β = - 1.109, P = 0.414), or any other patient factors. CONCLUSIONS: Despite strong evidence supporting the use of mesh in ventral and incisional hernia repair, there is substantial variation in mesh use between hospitals that is not explained by differences in patient characteristics or operative approach. This suggests that opportunities exist to standardize surgical practice to better align with evidence supporting the use of mesh in the management of these hernias.
Authors: Alisha Lussiez; Ryan Eton; Maia Anderson; Valeria Valbuena; Darrell Campbell; Michael Englesbe; Ryan Howard Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Aldo Fafaj; Emanuele Lo Menzo; Diya Alaedeen; Clayton C Petro; Steven Rosenblatt; Samuel Szomstein; Christian Massier; Ajita S Prabhu; David M Krpata; Walter Cha; Katherine Montelione; Luciano Tastaldi; Hemasat Alkhatib; Samuel J Zolin; Luis Felipe Okida; Michael J Rosen Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 16.681