Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 1228–1233 | Cite as

Differences of alternative methods of measuring abdominal wall hernia defect size: a prospective observational study

  • Deepa V. Cherla
  • Debbie F. Lew
  • Richard J. Escamilla
  • Julie L. Holihan
  • Arun S. Cherla
  • Juan Flores-Gonzalez
  • Tien C. Ko
  • Lillian S. Kao
  • Mike K. Liang
Article

Abstract

Background

Despite the importance of defect size, there are no standardized recommendations on how to measure ventral hernias. Our aims were to determine (1) if any significant differences existed between various methods of measuring ventral hernias and (2) the effect of these methods of measurement on selection of mesh size.

Method

A prospective study of all patients enrolled in a randomized trial assessing laparoscopic ventral hernia repair at a single institution from 3/2015 to 7/2016 was eligible for inclusion. Abdominal wall hernia defect size was determined by multiplying defect length and width obtained separately using each of five methods: radiographic (CT), intraoperative with abdomen desufflated, intraoperative with abdomen insufflated to 15 mmHg (intra-abdominal aspect), intraoperative with abdomen insufflated to 15 mmHg (extra-abdominal aspect), and clinical. The primary outcome was intraclass correlation between the five different methods of measurement for each patient. Secondary outcome was changes in mesh selection assuming a 5 cm overlap in each direction.

Results

Fifty patients met inclusion criteria for assessment. The five different measurement methods had an intraclass correlation for each patient of 0.533 (95% CI 0.373–0.697) (weak correlation) for length; 0.737 (95% CI 0.613–0.844) (moderate correlation) for width; and 0.684 (95% CI 0.544–0.810) (moderate correlation) for area. Different types of measurements affected mesh selection in up to 56% of cases.

Conclusion

Among five common methods of measuring abdominal wall hernia defect, sizes are only weakly to moderately correlated. Further studies are needed to determine which method results in optimally sized abdominal wall prostheses and superior ventral hernia repair.

Keywords

Correlation Measurements Ventral Hernia defect Mesh 

Notes

Acknowledgements

None. The first (corresponding) author is willing to make the data, analytic methods, and study materials available to other researchers. This material can be obtained by communicating with Dr. Cherla at deepa.cherla@uth.tmc.edu (institutional email).

Funding information

This work was supported by the Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences, which is funded by National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Award UL1 TR000371 and KL2 TR000370 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health. The funding agencies were not involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions. All authors had complete access to the study data that support the publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Drs. Cherla, Lew, Escamilla, Holihan, Gonzalez, Ko, Kao, Liang, and Mr. Cherla have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Kurmann A, Visth E, Candinas D, Beldi G (2011) Long-term follow-up of open and laparoscopic repair of large incisional hernias. World J Surg 35:297–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Le D, Deveney CW, Reaven NL, Funk SE, McGaughey KJ, Martindale RG (2013) Mesh choice in ventral hernia repair: so many choices, so little time. Am J Surg 205(5):602–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kapischke M, Schulz T, Schipper T, Tensfeldt J, Caliebe A (2008) Open versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: something different from a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 22(10):2251–2260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Primary fascial closure with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02363790?term=liang+hernia&rank=2. Accessed 11 Dec 2016
  5. 5.
    McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 22(3):276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, Chelala E et al (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13(4):407–414CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    LeBlanc K (2016) Proper mesh overlap is a key determinant in hernia recurrence following laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. Hernia 20(1):85–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter SA, Hicks SC, Brahmbhatt R, Liang MK (2014) Recurrence and pseudorecurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: predictors and patient-focused outcomes. Am Surg 80(2):138–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guidelines for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. SAGES [cited 18 Mar 2017]. Available from: https://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/guidelines-for-laparoscopic-ventral-hernia-repair/. Accessed 18 Mar 2017
  10. 10.
    Moreno-Egea A, Carrasco L, Girela E, Martin JG, Aguayo JL, Canteras M (2002) Open vs laparoscopic repair of spigelian hernia: a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 137(11):1266–1268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Awaiz A, Rahman F, Hossain MB, Yunus RM, Khan S, Memon B et al (2015) Meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for elective incisional hernia. Hernia 19(3):449–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernal E, Casado S, Grasa OG, Montiel JM, Gil I (2014) Computer vision distance measurement from endoscopic sequences: prospective evaluation in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 28(12):3506–3512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepa V. Cherla
    • 1
    • 2
  • Debbie F. Lew
    • 1
  • Richard J. Escamilla
    • 1
  • Julie L. Holihan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arun S. Cherla
    • 1
  • Juan Flores-Gonzalez
    • 1
  • Tien C. Ko
    • 1
  • Lillian S. Kao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mike K. Liang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Lyndon Baines Johnson HospitalUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice (C-STEP)HoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations