Howard Ryan, Ehlers Anne, Delaney Lia, Solano Quintin, Shen Mary, Englesbe Michael, Dimick Justin, Telem Dana
Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb;37(2):1501-1507. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09357-w. Epub 2022 Jul 18.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在腹侧疝和切口疝修补术中放置人工补片已被证明可降低术后疝复发的发生率。因此,多个共识指南建议对任何大小的腹侧疝使用补片。然而,实际临床实践模式在多大程度上反映了这些建议尚不清楚。
我们对密歇根外科质量协作疝登记处(MSQC-HR)进行了回顾性研究,以确定2020年1月1日至2021年12月31日期间接受清洁腹侧或切口疝修补术的患者。主要结局是补片的使用情况。我们使用带有经验贝叶斯估计的两步分层逻辑回归模型来评估医院层面补片使用情况与患者、手术及疝特征之间的关联。
共有5262例患者在65家医院接受了腹侧和切口疝修补术,平均年龄为53.8(14.5)岁,女性2292例(43.6%),平均疝宽度为3.2(3.4)厘米。医院平均手术量为81(49)例。4098例(77.9%)患者使用了补片。在患者层面,疝宽度和手术方式与补片使用显著相关。具体而言,疝宽度每增加1厘米,使用补片的可能性增加6.2%(95%CI 4.8 - 7.5%),与开放手术相比,微创修复使用补片的可能性高28.0%(95%CI 26.1 - 29.8%)。在医院层面,补片使用情况差异很大,范围从38.0%(95%CI 31.5 - 44.9%)到96.4%(95%CI 95.3 - 97.2%)。医院层面的补片使用情况与疝大小差异(β = - 0.003,P = 0.978)、手术方式(β = - 1.109,P = 0.414)或任何其他患者因素均无关联。
尽管有强有力的证据支持在腹侧和切口疝修补术中使用补片,但医院之间补片使用情况存在很大差异,且这种差异无法用患者特征或手术方式的不同来解释。这表明存在规范手术实践的机会,以便更好地与支持在这些疝的管理中使用补片的证据保持一致。