Suture versus open mesh repair for small umbilical hernia: Results of a propensity-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to compare the outcomes of open mesh repair versus suture repair for small (≤1 cm in diameter) umbilical hernia. The primary endpoint was the 30-day outcomes including pain, and secondary endpoints were the 2-year outcomes including recurrences and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This propensity-matched, multicenter study was carried out on data collected prospectively in the Hernia-Club database between 2011 and 2021. A total of 590 mesh repairs and 590 suture repairs were propensity score matched (age, sex, body mass index) at a ratio of 1:1. Postoperative pain was assessed using the Verbal Rating Scale-4 and 0‒10 Numerical Rating Scale-11. RESULTS: Mesh insertion was intraperitoneal in 331 patients (56.1%), extraperitoneal in 249 (42.2%), and onlay in 10 (1.7%). The rate of 30-day complications and Numerical Rating Scale-11 pain scores on postoperative days 8 and 30 were similar between the groups, including surgical site occurrences (2.2 vs 1.4% after suture repair). At 1 month, postoperative discomfort (sensation of something different from before) was significantly (P < .0001) more frequent after mesh repair, whereas the rate of relevant (moderate or severe) pain (mesh repair: 1.1% vs suture repair: 2.6%) and the distribution of Numerical Rating Scale-11 scores did not differ between the groups. At the 2-year follow-up, mesh repair patients had fewer reoperated recurrences (0.2% vs 1.7%; P = .035) and no more pain or discomfort than suture repair patients. CONCLUSION: Both techniques are effective and safe. Mesh repair is likely to reduce the rate of recurrences. Concerns about postoperative pain and infection might not prevent the use of mesh in smallest umbilical hernias.

Are the relative benefits of open versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh repair of umbilical hernias dependent on the diameter of the defect?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether the respective values of open and laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs of umbilical hernias are related to the European Hernia Society diameter of defects. METHODS: This registry-based study compared the early and 2-year outcomes of 776 open versus 1,019 consecutive laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs performed from 2011 to 2019. RESULTS: Intraperitoneal mesh repair, either laparoscopic or open, was found to be a safe procedure at the 2-year follow-up. The incidence of reoperated bowel obstructions was 0.3%. Compared with the open group: (1) postoperative surgical site occurrences in small (<2 cm) or medium (2-4 cm) hernias (0.3% vs 2.4%; P = .041; 1.4% vs 5.9%; P = .0002); (2) recurrence rates in large (≥4 cm) umbilical hernias (0.0% vs 8.6%; P = .0195); and (3) cumulative reoperation rates (0.9% vs 2.2%; P = .021) were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Conversely, the rate of early pain on day 1 and 1 month postsurgery was higher in the laparoscopic group, for all hernia sizes (P < .001). The rate of moderate or severe chronic pain at 2 years was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (8.1% vs 2.4%; P = .049) for small hernias. CONCLUSION: The respective benefit to drawback ratios for open versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs were related to the European Hernia Society diameter of hernia defect. In medium-large hernias, the benefits of laparoscopic repair overrode its drawbacks. In small hernias, the low recurrence rate, reduced early and chronic pain, and better rate of ambulatory surgery suggest there is still a place for open repair.