Identifying predictors of ventral hernia recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ventra hernias are increasing in prevalence and many recur despite attempted repair. To date, much of the literature is underpowered and divergent. As a result there is limited high quality evidence to inform surgeons succinctly which perioperative variables influence postoperative recurrence. This systematic review aimed to identify predictors of ventral hernia recurrence. METHODS: PubMed was searched for studies reporting prognostic data of ventral hernia recurrence between 1 January 1995 and 1 January 2018. Extracted data described hernia type (primary/incisional), definitions of recurrence, methods used to detect recurrence, duration of follow-up, and co-morbidity. Data were extracted for all potential predictors, estimates and thresholds described. Random-effects meta-analysis was used. Bias was assessed with a modified PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). RESULTS: Screening of 18 214 abstracts yielded 274 individual studies for inclusion. Hernia recurrence was defined in 66 studies (24.1 per cent), using 41 different unstandardized definitions. Three patient variables (female sex, age 65 years or less, and BMI greater than 25, 30, 35 or 40 kg/m2), five patient co-morbidities (smoking, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ASA grade III-IV, steroid use), two hernia-related variables (incisional/primary, recurrent/primary), six intraoperative variables (biological mesh, bridged repair, open versus laparoscopic surgery, suture versus mesh repair, onlay/retrorectus, intraperitoneal/retrorectus), and six postoperative variables (any complication, surgical-site occurrence, wound infection, seroma, haematoma, wound dehiscence) were identified as significant prognostic factors for hernia recurrence. CONCLUSION: This study summarized the current evidence base for predicting ventral hernia recurrence. Results should inform best practice and future research.

Do radiological research articles apply the term "pilot study" correctly? Systematic review.

AIM: To determine what proportion of radiological studies used the term "pilot" correctly. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Indexed studies describing themselves as a "pilot" in their title were identified from four indexed radiological journals. The aim was to identify 20 consecutive, eligible studies from each journal, as this sample size was deemed sufficient to be representative as to how this methodological description was employed by authors of radiological articles. Data were extracted relating to study design and data presented. The review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: The search string used identified 658 records across the four targeted journals. Ultimately, 78 reviews describing 5,572 patients were selected for systematic review. Median sample size was just 20 patients. No individual study qualified as a genuine pilot study when assessed against the a priori criteria. In reality, the large majority (66 studies, 84.6%) were framed as studies of diagnostic test accuracy. A significant proportion (21 studies, 26.9%) was retrospective, and the overwhelming majority were conducted in single centres (76 centres, 94.7%). Most (55 studies, 70.5%) stated no rationale for their sample size, and no study presented a formal power calculation. CONCLUSION: Radiological "pilot" studies are mostly underpowered studies of diagnostic test accuracy. In order to have scientific credibility, authors, reviewers, and editors of radiological journals are encouraged to familiarise themselves with different methodological study designs and their precise implications.

A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernias (VHs) often recur after surgical repair and subsequent attempts at repair are especially challenging. Rigorous research to reduce recurrence is required but such studies must be well-designed and report representative and comprehensive outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assesses methodological quality of non-randomised interventional studies of VH repair by systematic review. METHODS: We searched the indexed literature for non-randomised studies of interventions for VH repair, January 1995 to December 2017 inclusive. Each prospective study was coupled with a corresponding retrospective study using pre-specified criteria to provide matched, comparable groups. We applied a bespoke methodological tool for hernia trials by combining relevant items from existing published tools. Study introduction and rationale, design, participant inclusion criteria, reported outcomes, and statistical methods were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty studies (17,608 patients) were identified: 25 prospective and 25 retrospective. Overall, prospective studies scored marginally higher than retrospective studies for methodological quality, median score 17 (IQR: 14-18) versus 15 (IQR 12-18), respectively. For the sub-categories investigated, prospective studies achieved higher median scores for their, 'introduction', 'study design' and 'participants'. Surprisingly, no study stated that a protocol had been written in advance. Only 18 (36%) studies defined a primary outcome, and only 2 studies (4%) described a power calculation. No study referenced a standardised definition for VH recurrence and detection methods for recurrence varied widely. Methodological quality did not improve with publication year or increasing journal impact factor. CONCLUSION: Currently, non-randomised interventional studies of VH repair are methodologically poor. Clear outcome definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed.

What Exactly is Meant by "Loss of Domain" for Ventral Hernia? Systematic Review of Definitions.

Large ventral hernias are a significant surgical challenge. "Loss of domain" (LOD) expresses the relationship between hernia and abdominal volume, and is used to predict operative difficulty and success. This systematic review assessed whether different definitions of LOD are used in the literature. The PubMed database was searched for articles reporting large hernia repairs that explicitly described LOD. Two reviewers screened citations and extracted data from selected articles, focusing on the definitions used for LOD, study demographics, study design, and reporting surgical specialty. One hundred and seven articles were identified, 93 full-texts examined, and 77 were included in the systematic review. Sixty-seven articles were from the primary literature, and 10 articles were from the secondary literature. Twenty-eight articles (36%) gave a written definition for loss of domain. These varied and divided into six broad groupings; four described the loss of the right of domain, six described abdominal strap muscle contraction, five described the "second abdomen", five describing large irreducible hernias. Six gave miscellaneous definitions. Two articles gave multiple definitions. Twenty articles (26%) gave volumetric definitions; eight used the Tanaka method [hernia sac volume (HSV)/abdominal cavity volume] and five used the Sabbagh method [(HSV)/total peritoneal volume]. The definitions used for loss of domain were not dependent on the reporting specialty. Our systematic review revealed that multiple definitions of loss of domain are being used. These vary and are not interchangeable. Expert consensus on this matter is necessary to standardise this important concept for hernia surgeons.

A systematic methodological review of reported perioperative variables, postoperative outcomes and hernia recurrence from randomised controlled trials of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and standardised datasets are needed.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review assesses the perioperative variables and post-operative outcomes reported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of VH repair. This review focuses particularly on definitions of hernia recurrence and techniques used for detection. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to identify and quantify the inconsistencies in perioperative variable and postoperative outcome reporting, so as to justify future development of clear definitions of hernia recurrence and a standardised dataset of such variables. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for elective VH repair RCTs reported January 1995 to March 2016 inclusive. Three independent reviewers performed article screening, and two reviewers independently extracted data. Hernia recurrence, recurrence rate, timing and definitions of recurrence, and techniques used to detect recurrence were extracted. We also assessed reported post-operative complications, standardised operative outcomes, patient reported outcomes, pre-operative CT scan hernia dimensions, intra-operative variables, patient co-morbidity, and hernia morphology. RESULTS: 31 RCTs (3367 patients) were identified. Only 6 (19.3%) defined hernia recurrence and methods to detect recurrence were inconsistent. Sixty-four different clinical outcomes were reported across the RCTs, with wound infection (30 trials, 96.7%), hernia recurrence (30, 96.7%), seroma (29, 93.5%), length of hospital stay (22, 71%) and haematoma (21, 67.7%) reported most frequently. Fourteen (45%), 11 (35%) and 0 trials reported CT measurements of hernia defect area, width and loss of domain, respectively. No trial graded hernias using generally accepted scales. CONCLUSION: VH RCTs report peri- and post-operative variables inconsistently, and with poor definitions. A standardised minimum dataset, including definitions of recurrence, is required.

The use of central venous catheters for intravenous contrast injection for CT examinations.

The use of intravenous (i.v.) contrast media in CT examinations is often of great value in improving diagnostic accuracy. The preferable route of administration is via a peripheral i.v. cannula, with powered injectors allowing reliable delivery of rapid flow rates. However, many patients with a pre-existing central venous access device may have difficult peripheral access and there is a temptation to use the central device for delivery of contrast media. This review summarises the available evidence for the safe and effective use of these devices to assist the radiologist in balancing the relative risks and benefits of their use for contrast medium injection.

Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports.

AIM: To determine hospital consultants' preferences for the format and content of radiology reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine questionnaires were sent to consultant staff with responsibility for requesting ultrasound examinations. The participants were invited to rank a variety of hypothetical reports in order of preference. They were also asked whether they felt other commonly included features of a radiology report were of value. Rank data were analysed by the Friedman statistic, Fisher's multiple comparisons least significant difference test, and the Kemeny-Young method. RESULTS: Forty-nine responses were received. There was a preference for more detailed reports that included a clinical comment by the radiologist, for both normal and abnormal results (p<0.05). Reports presented in tables were preferred. The combination of a detailed tabular report with a radiologist's comment was the most popular single structure, preferred by 43% of respondents for normal reports and 51% for abnormal reports. CONCLUSION: Detailed reports with a radiologists' comment are preferred to briefer reports, even for normal examinations. Tabular reports are preferred to prose, with the combination of a detailed report presented in a tabular format accompanied by a radiologist's comment being the most preferred style.