Search

Purpose: International guidelines suggest the use of lapro-endoscopic technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia (IHR) because of lower postoperative pain and reduction in chronic pain. It is unclear if the primary benefit is due to the minimally invasive approach, the posterior mesh position or both. Further research evaluating posterior mesh placement using open preperitoneal techniques is recommended. A potential benefit of open preperitoneal repair is the avoidance of general anesthesia, as these repairs can be performed under local anesthesia. This study compares clinical and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral laparo-endoscopic, robotic, and open posterior mesh IHRs. Methods: We performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing IHR between 2012 and 2021 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. 10,409 patients underwent a unilateral IHR via a posterior approach. Hernia repairs were performed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which includes laparoscopic and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP), or open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) approaches. Propensity score matching (PSM) utilizing nearest neighbor matching accounted for differences in baseline characteristics and possible confounding variables between groups. We matched 816 patients in the MIS cohort with 816 patients in the TREPP/OPP group. Outcomes included patient reported quality of life, hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use. Results: Improvement was seen after TREPP/OPP as compared to MIS IHR in EuraHS at 30 days (Median(IQR) 7.0 (2.0–16.64) vs 10 (2.0–24.0); OR 0.69 [0.55–0.85]; p = 0.001) and 6 months (1.0 (0.0–4.0) vs 2.0 (0.0–4.0); OR 0.63 [0.46–85]; p = 0.002), patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up (18% vs 45% OR 0.26 [0.19–0.35]; p < 0.001), and rates of surgical site occurrences (0.8% vs 4.9% OR 0.16 [0.06–0.35]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in EuraHS scores and recurrences at 1 year. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a potential benefit of open posterior mesh placement over MIS repair in short-term quality of life and seroma formation with equivalent rates of hernia recurrence. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and determine the reproducibility of these findings outside of high-volume specialty centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Despite progress toward curtailing opioid prescribing, physicians are often slow to adopt new prescribing practices. Using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC), we aimed to demonstrate the ability of a national, disease-specific, personalized registry to impact opioid prescribing. Methods: Using a collaborative and iterative process, a module was developed to capture surgeon opioid prescribing, patient-reported consumption, and risk factors for opioid use. Study reported according to the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 guidelines. Results: Six months after implementation of the ACHQC opioid module, we assessed participation, prescribing and patient consumption patterns. For ventral hernia repair (VHR; n = 398), 23 surgeons reported prescribing > 20 pills (43%), 11–20 (40%), and < 10 (18%). In contrast, patients (n = 217) reported taking < 10 pills in 65% and only 20% reported taking > 15. For inguinal hernia repair (IHR; n = 443) 37 surgeons reported prescribing > 20 tablets (22%), 11–20 (32%), and < 10 (44%). Patients (n = 277) reported taking < 10 pills in 81% of cases, including 50% reporting zero, and only 13% taking > 15. We identified barriers to practice change and developed a strategy for education, provision of individualized data, and encouraging participation. Surgeon participation has since increased significantly (n = 65 for VHR; n = 53 for IHR), and analysis of the impact of this process is ongoing. Conclusion: Quality improvement requires physician engagement, which can be facilitated by meaningful and actionable data. The specificity of the ACHQC and the ability to provide surgeons with individualized data is a model method to incite change in physician behavior and improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Ambiguity exists defining abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) and associated Current Procedural Terminology code usage in the context of ventral hernia repair (VHR), especially with recent adoption of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted AWR techniques. Current guidelines have not accounted for the spectrum of repair complexity and have relied on expert opinion. This study aimed to develop an evidence-based definition and coding algorithm for AWR based on myofascial releases performed. Methods: Three vignettes and associated outcomes were evaluated in adult patients who underwent elecive VHR with mesh between 2013 and 2020 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative including: (1) no myofascial release (NR), (2) posterior rectus sheath myofascial release (PRS), and (3) PRS with transversus abdominis release or external oblique release (PRS-TA/EO). The primary outcome measure was operative time based on the following categories (min): 0–59, 60–119, 120–179, 180–239, and 240 + ; secondary outcomes included disease severity measures and 30-day postoperative outcomes. Results: 15,246 patients were included: 7287(NR), 2425(PRS), and 5534(PRS-TA/EO). Operative time increased based on myofascial releases performed: 180–239 min (p < 0.05): NR(5%), PRS(23%), PRS-TA/EO(28%) and greater than 240 min (p < 0.05): NR (4%), PRS (17%), PRS-TA/EO(44%). A dose–response effect was observed for all secondary outcome measures indicative of three distinct levels of patient complexity and outcomes for each of the three vignettes. Conclusion: AWR is defined as VHR including myofascial release. Coding for AWR should reflect the actual effort used to manage these patients. We propose an evidence-based approach to AWR coding that focuses on myofascial release and is inclusive of minimally invasive techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We believe that this approach can be applied to patients with CPIP as well as to patients who struggle with mental health conditions who present with a primary inguinal hernia. In our inguinal hernia practice, we have observed that patients with pre-operative anxiety about CPIP ask more questions, often come in for multiple pre-operative appointments and get multiple opinions prior to surgery. The authors point out that the question remains whether CPIP increases the risk of psychological disorders or if these disorders predispose patients to CPIP. [Extracted from the article]