Top

Hernia

Published in:

01-08-2020 | Parastomale Hernie | Review

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and quality of the evidence in ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review

Authors: A. Sandø, M. J. Rosen, B. T. Heniford, T. Bisgaard

Published in: Hernia | Issue 4/2020

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been increasingly accepted to evaluate the quality of surgery. The impact of a hernia on PROMs and the indication for elective ventral hernia mesh repair are poorly researched. The primary objective in this systematic review was to provide evidence for PROM changes at least 3 months after elective ventral hernia mesh repair. Secondarily, a critical appraisal of the study quality was undertaken.

Methods

Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid Embase, and CENTRAL were searched (year 2000–May 12, 2019) for studies reporting any of 21 predefined PROMs pre- and ≥ 3 months postoperatively following adult ventral hernia mesh repair. A pre-study defined analysis method was used to assess pre- vs. postoperative PROM changes. Quality assessment was guided by criteria formulated by the National Institutes of Health.

Results

The search yielded 11,438 potentially eligible studies of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were of poor or moderate quality and one study was of high quality. There was no evidence for a clinically relevant postoperative improvement in any PROM following umbilical hernia repair or medium-sized incisional hernia repair. A clinically relevant postoperative improvement of pain, physical impairment, and social involvement was seen in patients with a large-sized incisional hernia repair and stoma-related complaints in patients with a medium-sized parastomal hernia repair.

Conclusion

This analysis suggested that a minor subset of PROMs improved in patients undergoing large-sized incisional and medium-sized parastomal hernia repair. High-quality studies are imperative in this extremely often conducted surgical procedure.

Trial registration

The review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018096671, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=96671).

Available only for authorised users

Poulose BK, Shelton J, Phillips S et al (2012) Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research. Hernia 16:179–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0879-9 CrossRefPubMed

Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F (2016) Long-term recurrence and complications associated with elective incisional hernia repair. JAMA 316:1575–1582. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.15217 CrossRefPubMed

Christoffersen MW, Brandt E, Helgstrand F et al (2015) Recurrence rate after absorbable tack fixation of mesh in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. Br J Surg 102:541–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9750 CrossRefPubMed

Poulose BK (2018) So what’s the chance of this mesh causing me a problem in the long run? Ann Surg 267:e66. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002681 CrossRefPubMed

Rogmark P, Petersson U, Bringman S et al (2016) Quality of life and surgical outcome 1 year after open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: PROLOVE: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 263:244–250. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001305 CrossRefPubMed

Liang MK, Holihan JL, Itani K et al (2017) Ventral hernia management: expert consensus guided by systematic review. Ann Surg 265:80–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701 CrossRefPubMed

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1985) Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections. https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000420/p0000420.asp. Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Cheung PWH, Wong CKH, Samartzis D et al (2016) Psychometric validation of the EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) in Chinese patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 11:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0083-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Krpata DM, Schmotzer BJ, Flocke S et al (2012) Design and initial implementation of HerQLes: a hernia-related quality-of-life survey to assess abdominal wall function. J Am Coll Surg 215:635–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.06.412 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S et al (1995) Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg 82:216–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800820229 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Heniford BT, Walters AL, Lincourt AE et al (2008) Comparison of generic versus specific quality-of-life scales for mesh hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 206:638–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.11.025 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM et al (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Ware JJ, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233CrossRef

14.

Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F et al (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13:407–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-009-0518-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Lee JS, Hobden E, Stiell IG, Wells GA (2003) Clinically important change in the visual analog scale after adequate pain control. Acad Emerg Med 10:1128–1130. https://doi.org/10.1197/S1069-6563(03)00372-5 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN et al (2013) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:154–160. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN et al (2012) Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J Neurosurg Spine 16:471–478. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.1.SPINE11842 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cherla DV, Moses ML, Viso CP et al (2018) Impact of abdominal wall hernias and repair on patient quality of life. World J Surg 42:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4173-6 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

The National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools. Accessed 19 Nov 2019

21.

Uranues S, Salehi B, Bergamaschi R (2008) Adverse events, quality of life, and recurrence rates after laparoscopic adhesiolysis and recurrent incisional hernia mesh repair in patients with previous failed repairs. J Am Coll Surg 207:663–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.06.330 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Mussack T, Ladurner R, Vogel T et al (2006) Health-related quality-of-life changes after laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair: a matched pair analysis. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 20:410–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0440-y CrossRef

23.

Haskins IN, Prabhu AS, Jensen KK et al (2018) Effect of transversus abdominis release on core stability: short-term results from a single institution. Surgery 165:412–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.08.005 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Canziani M, Frattini F, Cavalli M et al (2009) Sutureless mesh fibrin glue incisional hernia repair. Hernia 13:625–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-009-0555-5 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Licari L, Guercio G, Campanella S et al (2019) Clinical and functional outcome after abdominal wall incisional hernia repair: evaluation of quality-of-life improvement and comparison of assessment scales. World J Surg 43:1914–1920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05003-0 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ahonen-Siirtola M, Nevala T, Vironen J et al (2020) Laparoscopic versus hybrid approach for treatment of incisional ventral hernia: a prospective randomised multicentre study, 1-year results. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06735-9 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Rickert A, Kienle P, Kuthe A et al (2012) A randomised, multi-centre, prospective, observer and patient blind study to evaluate a non-absorbable polypropylene mesh vs. a partly absorbable mesh in incisional hernia repair. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 397:1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-1009-6 CrossRef

28.

Conze J, Kingsnorth AN, Flament JB et al (2005) Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight composite mesh with polyester or polypropylene mesh for incisional hernia repair. Br J Surg 92:1488–1493. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5208 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Colak E, Ozlem N, Kucuk GO et al (2015) Prospective randomized trial of mesh fixation with absorbable versus nonabsorbable tacker in laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:21611–21616 (PMID: 26885113) PubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Itani KMF, Hur K, Kim LT et al (2010) Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial. Arch Surg 145:322–328. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2010.18 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Belyansky I et al (2012) Prospective, long-term comparison of quality of life in laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 256:713–714. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182734130 CrossRef

32.

Blair LJ, Cox TC, Huntington CR et al (2016) The effect of component separation technique on quality of life (QOL) and surgical outcomes in complex open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31:3539–3546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5382-z CrossRef

33.

Lauscher JC, Loh JC, Rieck S et al (2013) Long-term follow-up after incisional hernia repair: are there only benefits for symptomatic patients? Hernia 17:203–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0955-9 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Klima DA, Tsirline VB, Belyansky I et al (2014) Quality of life following component separation versus standard open ventral hernia repair for large hernias. Surg Innov 21:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350613495113 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ponten JEH, Leenders BJM, Leclercq WKG et al (2018) Mesh versus patch repair for epigastric and umbilical hernia (MORPHEUS trial); one-year results of a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 42:1312–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4297-8 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Kaufmann R, Halm JA, Eker HH et al (2018) Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 391:860–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736%2818%2930298-8 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Schoenmaeckers EJP, de Haas RJ, Stirler V et al (2011) Impact of the number of tacks on postoperative pain in laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: do more tacks cause more pain? Surg Endosc 26:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1876-x CrossRef

38.

Berrevoet F, Doerhoff C, Muysoms F et al (2017) A multicenter prospective study of patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal positioning using the monofilament polyester composite ventral patch: interim results of the PANACEA study. Med Devices Evid Res 10:81–88. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S132755 CrossRef

39.

Christoffersen MW, Rosenberg J, Jorgensen LN et al (2014) Health-related quality of life scores changes significantly within the first 3 months after hernia mesh repair. World J Surg 38:1852–1859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2411-0 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Stirler VMA, Nallayici EG, de Haas RJ et al (2017) Postoperative pain after laparoscopic repair of primary umbilical hernia: titanium tacks versus absorbable tacks: a prospective comparative cohort analysis of 80 patients with a long-term follow-up. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 27:424–427. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000467 CrossRef

41.

Greco DP, Fei L, Guerriero L et al (2014) Feasibility and effectiveness of primary umbilical hernia repair with biologic graft: preliminary study. Acta Chir Belg 114:125–130CrossRef

42.

Krogsgaard M, Pilsgaard B, Borglit TB et al (2017) Symptom load and individual symptoms before and after repair of parastomal hernia: a prospective single centre study. Colorectal Dis 19:200–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13403 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen MB et al (2009) Nationwide study of early outcomes after incisional hernia repair. Br J Surg 96:1452–1457. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6728 CrossRefPubMed

44.

Maloney S, Schlosser K, Prasad T et al (2019) Twelve years of component separation technique in abdominal wall reconstruction. Surgery 166:435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.05.043 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Lindmark M, Strigard K, Nordin P, Gunnarsson U (2019) Patient reported injuries after ventral hernia repair. Scand J Surg 108:30–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496918783727 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Bisgaard T, Kaufmann R, Christoffersen MW et al (2018) Lower risk of recurrence after mesh repair versus non-mesh sutured repair in open umbilical hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Scand J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496918812208 CrossRefPubMed

47.

Sosin M, Patel KM, Nahabedian MY, Bhanot P (2014) Patient-centered outcomes following laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review of the current literature. Am J Surg 208:677–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.01.011 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Sosin M, Patel KM, Albino FP et al (2014) A patient-centered appraisal of outcomes following abdominal wall reconstruction: a systematic review of the current literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:408–418. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000436860.47774.eb CrossRefPubMed

49.

Matthews JH, Bhanderi S, Chapman SJ et al (2016) Underreporting of secondary endpoints in randomized trials: cross-sectional, observational study. Ann Surg 264:982–986. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001573 CrossRefPubMed

50.

Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ et al (2016) Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 31:337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Long-term patient-reported outcomes and quality of the evidence in ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review
Authors: A. Sandø
M. J. Rosen
B. T. Heniford
T. Bisgaard
Publication date: 01-08-2020
Publisher: Springer Paris
Keywords: Parastomale Hernie
Incisional Hernia
Published in: Hernia / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02154-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and quality of the evidence in ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Open mesh vs. suture umbilical hernia repair: systematic review and updated trial sequential meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hospital volume and outcome in inguinal hernia repair: analysis of routine data of 133,449 patients

Mesh infection in cases of polypropylene mesh hernioplasty

Does the use of monopolar energy as the preferred mode of dissection effectively reduce seroma formation in laparoscopic total extra peritoneal hernioplasty? A prospective double-blinded randomized control trial

Implementation of the small bites closure of abdominal midline incisions in clinical practice is correlated with a reduction in surgical site infections

What is the outcome of re-recurrent vs recurrent inguinal hernia repairs? An analysis of 16,206 patients from the Herniamed Registry