ABSTRACT
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of highly detailed ventral hernia repair (VHR) operative reports and associations between operative report detail and postoperative outcomes in a medico-legal dataset. Background: VHR are one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. Previous work has shown that VHR operative reports are poorly detailed, however, the relationship between operative report detail and patient outcomes is unknown. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional observational study. Operative reports describing VHR were obtained from a medical-legal database. Medical records were screened and data was extracted including clinical outcomes, such as surgical site infection (SSI), hernia recurrence, and reoperation and the presence of key details in each report. Highly detailed operative reports were defined as having 70% of recommended details. The primary outcome was the prevalence of highly detailed VHR operative reports. Results: A total of 1011 VHR operative reports dictated by 693 surgeons across 517 facilities in 50 states were included. Median duration of follow-up was 4.6 years after initial surgery. Only 35.7% of operative reports were highly detailed. More recent operative reports, cases with resident involvement, and contaminated procedures were more likely to be highly detailed (all P < 0.05). Compared to poorly detailed operative reports, cases with highly detailed reports had fewer SSIs (13.2% vs 7.5%, P = 0.006), hernia recurrence (65.8% vs 55.4%, P = 0.002), and reoperation (78.9% vs 62.6%, P = 0.001). Conclusions: In this medico-legal dataset, most VHR operative reports are poorly detailed while highly detailed operative reports were associated with lower rates of complications. Future studies should examine a nationally representative dataset to validate our findings.
ABSTRACT
Background: During minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) it is unknown if a fascial defect closure, as opposed to a bridged repair (current care), is beneficial for patients. We sought to systematically review the published literature on the role of fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fascial defect closure with bridged repair. The primary outcome was major complications defined as deep/organ-space surgical site infections (SSIs), reoperations, hernia recurrences, or deaths. Secondary outcomes included SSI, seroma, eventration, hernia recurrence, post-operative pain, and quality of life (QOL). Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were obtained through random effect meta-analyses. Results: Of 579 screened articles, 6 publications of 5 RCTs were included. No significant difference in major complications (10.6% vs 10.4%, RR=1.05, 95% CI=0.51-2.14, P=.90) or recurrences (9.0% vs 10.6%, RR=0.92, 95% CI=0.32-2.61, P=.87) were found between groups. Fascial defect closure decreased the risk of seromas (22.9% vs 34.2%, RR=0.60, 95% CI=0.37-0.97, P=.04) and may decrease the risk of eventrations (6.7% vs 9.0%, RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.37-1.50, P=.41) at the expense of potentially increasing the risk of SSI (3.2% vs 1.4%, RR=1.89, 95% CI=0.60-5.93; P=.28). Reporting of pain and QOL scores was inconsistent. Conclusion: While most individual RCTs demonstrated benefit with fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR, our meta-analysis of fascial defect closure demonstrated only a statistically significant difference in seromas compared to bridged repair. Large, multi-center RCTs are needed.
