Advertisement

Nationwide Propensity-Score Matched Study of Mesh Versus Suture Repair of Primary Ventral Hernias in Women with a Subsequent Pregnancy

  • Erling OmaEmail author
  • Thue Bisgaard
  • Lars N. Jorgensen
  • Kristian K. Jensen
Original Scientific Report

Abstract

Background

Mesh reinforcement is recommended for repair of primary ventral hernias; however, this recommendation does not consider a potential subsequent pregnancy. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to compare mesh and suture repair of a primary ventral hernia in women with a subsequent pregnancy.

Methods

All women of childbearing age who underwent repair of a primary ventral hernia between 2007 and 2014 were identified in the Danish Ventral Hernia Database. Data were merged with the Danish Medical Birth Registry. Women with a subsequent pregnancy and a propensity-score matched control group of women without a subsequent pregnancy were included. A structured questionnaire was sent out, and the primary outcome was hernia recurrence, while the secondary outcome was chronic postoperative pain.

Results

In total, 632 women were included, of whom 441 (69.8%) responded to the questionnaire (195 and 246 with and without subsequent pregnancy, respectively). The 8-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 24.8%. In women with a subsequent pregnancy, mesh repair was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.20–0.95, p = 0.038, number needed to treat = 5.1) and an increased risk of chronic pain (OR 5.07, 95% CI 1.20–23.38, p = 0.029, number needed to harm = 4.7) compared with suture repair, in multivariable analyses.

Conclusions

Mesh repair was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence, but an increased risk of chronic pain, compared with suture repair in women with a subsequent pregnancy.

Notes

Funding

Dr. Oma has received a Grant from Lundbeckfonden. The foundation was not involved in study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation or publication decisions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Oma E, Henriksen NA, Jensen KK (2019) Ventral hernia and pregnancy: a systematic review. Am J Surg 217:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christoffersen MW, Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Strandfelt P, Bisgaard T (2015) Long-term recurrence and chronic pain after repair for small umbilical or epigastric hernias: a regional cohort study. Am J Surg 209:725–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaufmann R, Halm JA, Eker HH, Klitsie PJ, Nieuwenhuizen J, van Geldere D, Simons MP, van der Harst E, van ‘t Riet M, van der Holt B, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2018) Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 391:860–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lappen JR, Sheyn D, Hackney DN (2016) Does pregnancy increase the risk of abdominal hernia recurrence after prepregnancy surgical repair? Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(390):e391–e395Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oma E, Jensen KK, Jorgensen LN (2017) Increased risk of ventral hernia recurrence after pregnancy: a nationwide register-based study. Am J Surg 214:474–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haskins IN, Rosen MJ, Prabhu AS, Amdur RL, Rosenblatt S, Brody F, Krpata DM (2017) Umbilical hernia repair in pregnant patients: review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Hernia 21:767–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oma E, Bay-Nielsen M, Jensen KK, Jorgensen LN, Pinborg A, Bisgaard T (2017) Primary ventral or groin hernia in pregnancy: a cohort study of 20,714 women. Hernia 21:335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oma E, Jensen KK, Jorgensen LN (2016) Recurrent umbilical or epigastric hernia during and after pregnancy: a nationwide cohort study. Surgery 159:1677–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Strandfelt P, Bisgaard T (2012) Reoperation versus clinical recurrence rate after ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 256:955–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van den Heuvel B, van Jarwaarde JA, Wichers P, de Lange de Klerk ES, Bonjer HJ, Dwars BJ (2015) Follow-up after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, can it be done by phone? A prospective study in 300 patients, the PINQ-PHONE. Surg Endosc 29:3292–3297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cunningham J, Temple WJ, Mitchell P, Nixon JA, Preshaw RM, Hagen NA (1996) Cooperative hernia study: pain in the postrepair patient. Ann Surg 224:598–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Austin PC (2011) Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 10:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lonjon G, Porcher R, Ergina P, Fouet M, Boutron I (2017) Potential pitfalls of reporting and bias in observational studies with propensity score analysis assessing a surgical procedure: a methodological systematic review. Ann Surg 265:901–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Smeden M, de Groot JA, Moons KG, Collins GS, Altman DG, Eijkemans MJ, Reitsma JB (2016) No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE (2007) Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 165:710–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qandeel H, O’Dwyer PJ (2016) Relationship between ventral hernia defect area and intra-abdominal pressure: dynamic in vivo measurement. Surg Endosc 30:1480–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Altman DG, Andersen PK (1999) Calculating the number needed to treat for trials where the outcome is time to an event. BMJ 319:1492–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bender R, Blettner M (2002) Calculating the “number needed to be exposed” with adjustment for confounding variables in epidemiological studies. J Clin Epidemiol 55:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jukic AM, Baird DD, Weinberg CR, McConnaughey DR, Wilcox AJ (2013) Length of human pregnancy and contributors to its natural variation. Hum Reprod 28:2848–2855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, Chelala E, Dietz UA, Eker HH, El Nakadi I, Hauters P, Hidalgo Pascual M, Hoeferlin A, Klinge U, Montgomery A, Simmermacher RK, Simons MP, Smietanski M, Sommeling C, Tollens T, Vierendeels T, Kingsnorth A (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13:407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jensen KK, Henriksen NA, Jorgensen LN (2015) Abdominal wall hernia and pregnancy: a systematic review. Hernia 19:689–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kohler G, Luketina RR, Emmanuel K (2015) Sutured repair of primary small umbilical and epigastric hernias: concomitant rectus diastasis is a significant risk factor for recurrence. World J Surg 39:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spitznagle TM, Leong FC, Van Dillen LR (2007) Prevalence of diastasis recti abdominis in a urogynecological patient population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wise J (2018) Hernia mesh complications may have affected up to 170 000 patients, investigation finds. BMJ 362:k4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Erritzoe-Jervild L, Christoffersen MW, Helgstrand F, Bisgaard T (2013) Long-term complaints after elective repair for small umbilical or epigastric hernias. Hernia 17:211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Westen M, Christoffersen MW, Jorgensen LN, Stigaard T, Bisgaard T (2014) Chronic complaints after simple sutured repair for umbilical or epigastric hernias may be related to recurrence. Langenbecks Arch Surg 399:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schoenmaeckers E, Stirler V, Raymakers J, Rakic S (2012) Pregnancy following laparoscopic mesh repair of ventral abdominal wall hernia. JSLS 16:85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aaen V, Cowan L, Sakala EP, Small ML (1993) Prolonged parenteral meperidine analgesia during pregnancy for pain from an abdominal wall mesh graft. Obstet Gynecol 82:721–722Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Junge K, Klinge U, Prescher A, Giboni P, Niewiera M, Schumpelick V (2001) Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implants. Hernia 5:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aasvang EK, Gmaehle E, Hansen JB, Gmaehle B, Forman JL, Schwarz J, Bittner R, Kehlet H (2010) Predictive risk factors for persistent postherniotomy pain. Anesthesiology 112:957–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erling Oma
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Thue Bisgaard
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lars N. Jorgensen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kristian K. Jensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Digestive Disease CenterBispebjerg HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Gastrounit, Surgical Division, Centre for Surgical Research (CSR)Hvidovre HospitalHvidovreDenmark
  3. 3.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations