Hernia Repair in the United States: Current Situation and Trends

  • James G. BittnerIV
  • Natasha L. ClingempeelEmail author


In the USA, the incidence and prevalence of groin and ventral/incisional hernia are unknown, but current estimates suggest that both hernia types represent a common condition with potential morbidity. Various medical conditions prevalent in the USA impact the formation and recurrence of hernias. Increasingly US surgeons are educating patients about modifiable risk factors that impact the success of hernia repair. The USA continues to see a change in the types of operative techniques used for hernia repair. Another paradigm shift occurring in the USA is the way surgeons think about mesh type and location for hernia reinforcement. Outcomes assessment remains a critical topic of discussion and ongoing research among US surgeons. The following chapter will outline hernia epidemiology as well as current trends in pre-habilitation, operative techniques specifically robot-assisted hernia repair, preferred mesh type and location, and surgical outcomes reporting and mentorship.


  1. 1.
    National Center for Health Services. US National Health Survey. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1960.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beadles CA, Meagher AD, Charles AG. Trends in emergent hernia repair in the United States. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:194–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitzgibbons RJ, Forse RA. Clinical practice. Groin hernias in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:753–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jensen KK, Henriksen JA, Jorgensen LN. Inguinal hernia epidemiology. In: Hope WW, Cobb WS, Adrales GL, editors. Textbook of hernia. Cham: Springer International; 2017. p. 23–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alaedeen DI. Introduction and epidemiology of incisional hernias and the argument for mesh in incisional hernia repair. In: Hope WW, Cobb WS, Adrales GL, editors. Textbook of hernia. Cham: Springer International; 2017. p. 177–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rutkow IM. Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;(5):1045–51.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poulose BK, Shelton J, Phillips S, et al. Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research. Hernia. 2012;16:179–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaoutzanis C, Leichtle SW, Mouawad NK, et al. Risk factors for postoperative wound infections and prolonged hospitalization after ventral/incisional hernia repair. Hernia. 2015;19:113–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adult obesity prevalence maps. 2015. Accessed 17 May 2017.
  10. 10.
    Pernar LI, Pernar CH, Dieffenbach BV, Brooks DC, Smink DS, Tavakkoli A. What is the BMI threshold for open ventral hernia repair? Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1311–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kubasiak JC, Landin M, Schimpke S, et al. The effect of tobacco use on outcomes of laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs: a review of NSQIP dataset. Surg Endosc. 2016; Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current smoking among adults in the United States. 2015. Accessed 17 May 2017.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A snapshot: diabetes in the United States. 2016. Accessed 17 May 2017.
  14. 14.
    Ventral Hernia Working Group, Breuing K, Butler CE, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 2010;148:544–58.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berger RL, Li LT, Hicks SC, Davila JA, Kao LS, Liang MK. Development and validation of a risk-stratification score for surgical site occurrence and surgical site infection after open ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:974–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goodenough CJ, Ko TC, Kao LS, et al. Development and validation of a risk stratification score for ventral incisional hernia after abdominal surgery: hernia expection rates in intra-abdominal surgery (The HERNIA Project). J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:405–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baucom RB, Ousley J, Feurer ID, et al. Patient reported outcomes after incisional hernia repair—establishing the ventral hernia recurrence inventory. Am J Surg. 2016;212:81–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huntington CR, Cox TC, Blair LJ, et al. Nationwide variation in outcomes and cost of laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:934–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Funk LM, Perry KA, Narula VK, Mikami DJ, Melvin WS. Current national practice patterns for inpatient management of ventral abdominal wall hernia in the United States. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:4101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colavita PD, Walters AL, Tsirline VB, et al. The regionalization of ventral hernia repair: occurrence and outcomes over a decade. Am Surg. 2013;79:693–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Novitsky YW, Fayezizadeh M, Majumder A, Neupane R, Elliott HL, Orenstein SB. Outcomes of posterior component separation with transversus abdominis muscle release and synthetic mesh sublay reinforcement. Ann Surg. 2016;264:226–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carbonell AM, Warren JA, Prabhu AS, et al. Reducing length of stay using a robotic-assisted approach for retromuscular ventral hernia repair: a comparative analysis from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. Ann Surg. 2017; Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holihan JL, Ioana Bondre BS, Askenasy EP, et al. Sublay versus underlay in open ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res. 2016;202:26–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Holihan JL, Nguyen DH, Nguyen MT, Mo J, Kao LS, Liang MK. Mesh location in open ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2016;40:89–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carbonell AM, Criss CN, Cobb WS, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ. Outcomes of synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:991–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosen MJ, Bauer JJ, Harmaty M, et al. Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of the recurrence, surgical site infection, and quality of life after contaminated ventral hernia repair using biosynthetic absorbable mesh: the COBRA study. Ann Surg. 2017;265:205–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fortelny RH, Petter-Puchner AH, Glaser KS, Redl H. Use of fibrin sealant (Tisseel/Tissucol) in hernia repair: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1803–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deeken CR, Matthews BD. Characterization of the mechanical strength, resorption properties, and histologic characteristics of a fully absorbable material (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate – PHASIX mesh) in a porcine model of hernia repair. ISRN Surg. 2013;28:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wormer BA, Clavin NW, Lefaivre JF, et al. Reducing postoperative abdominal bulge following deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction with onlay monofilament poly-4-hydroxybutyrate biosynthetic mesh. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33:8–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Regner JL, Mrdutt MM, Munoz-Maldonado Y. Tailoring surgical approach for elective ventral hernia repair based on obesity and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program outcomes. Am J Surg. 2015;210:1024–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ousley J, Baucom RB, Stewart MK, et al. Previous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection independent of body site increases odds of surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:470–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deerenberg EB, Timmermans L, Hogerzeil DP, et al. A systematic review of the surgical treatment of large incisional hernia. Hernia. 2015;19:89–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holihan JL, Askenasy EP, Greenberg JA, et al. Component separation vs. bridged repair for large ventral hernias: a multi-institutional risk-adjusted comparison, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016;17:17–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deeken CR, Abdo MS, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Physicomechanical evaluation of polypropylene, polyester, and polytetrafluoroethylene meshes for inguinal hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:68–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Deeken CR, Abdo MS, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Physicomechanical evaluation of absorbable and nonabsorbable barrier composite meshes for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1541–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liang MK, Holihan JL, Itani K, et al. Ventral hernia management: expert consensus guided by systematic review. Ann Surg. 2017;265:80–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee GI, Lee MR, Green I, Allaf M, Marohn MR. Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1697–706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kudsi OY, McCarty JC, Paluvoi N, Mabardy AS. Transition from laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective review of a single surgeon’s experience. World J Surg. 2017; Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Prabhu AS, Dickens EO, Copper CM, et al. Laparoscopic vs robotic intraperitoneal mesh repair for incisional hernia: an Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2017; Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Americas Hernia Society. Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. Accessed 18 May 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of SurgeryVirginia Commonwealth University School of MedicineRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations