Advertisement

Surgeon utilization of minimally invasive techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a population-based study

  • Joceline V. Vu
  • Vidhya Gunaseelan
  • Greta L. Krapohl
  • Michael J. Englesbe
  • Darrell A. CampbellJr.
  • Justin B. Dimick
  • Dana A. Telem
Article

Abstract

Background

MIS utilization for inguinal hernia repair is low compared to in other procedures. The impact of low adoption in surgeons is unclear, but may affect regional access to minimally invasive surgery (MIS). We explored the impact of surgeon MIS utilization in inguinal hernia repair across a statewide population.

Methods

We analyzed 6723 patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair from 2012 to 2016 in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. The primary outcome was surgeon MIS utilization. The geographic distribution of high MIS-utilizing surgeons was compared across Hospital Referral Regions using Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify patient and hospital factors associated with MIS utilization.

Results

Surgeon MIS utilization varied, with 58% of 540 surgeons performing no MIS repair. For the remaining surgeons, MIS utilization was bimodally distributed. High-utilization surgeons were unevenly distributed across region, with corresponding differences in regional MIS rate ranging from 10 to 48% (p < 0.001). MIS was used in 41% of bilateral and 38% of recurrent hernia. MIS repair was more likely with higher hospital volume and less likely for patients aged 65+ (OR 0.68, p = 0.003), black patients (OR 0.75, p = 0.045), patients with COPD (OR 0.57, p < 0.001), and patients in ASA class > 3 (OR 0.79 p < 0.001).

Conclusions

MIS utilization varies between surgeons, likely driving differences in regional MIS rates and leading to guideline-discordant care for patients with bilateral or recurrent hernia. Interventions to reduce this practice gap could include training programs in MIS repair, or regionalization of care to improve MIS access.

Keywords

Inguinal hernia repair Laparoscopy Surgical technology Robotic inguinal hernia repair Minimally invasive surgery Surgical disparity 

Notes

Funding

Dr. Vu is funded by the National Institutes of Health T32 Obesity Surgery Scientist Training Program: 1 T32 DK 108740-1.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dr. Telem receives consulting fees for Medtronic. Dr. Vu, Ms. Gunaseelan, Dr. Krapohl, Dr. Englesbe, Dr. Campbell, and Dr. Dimick have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Smink DS, Paquette IM, Finlayson SR (2009) Utilization of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair: a population-based analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19(6):745–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zendejas B, Ramirez T, Jones T et al (2012) Trends in the utilization of inguinal hernia repair techniques: a population-based study. Am J Surg 203(3):313–317CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trevisonno M, Kaneva P, Watanabe Y et al (2015) Current practices of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a population-based analysis. Hernia 19(5):725–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E et al (2017) A prospective randomized study comparing laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein repair for bilateral inguinal hernias. Am J Surg 216:78–83Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bignell M, Partridge G, Mahon D, Rhodes M (2012) Prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic (transabdominal preperitoneal-TAPP) versus open (mesh) repair for bilateral and recurrent inguinal hernia: incidence of chronic groin pain and impact on quality of life: results of 10 year follow-up. Hernia 16(6):635–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowling K, El-Badawy S, Massri E et al (2017) Laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair: patient reported outcomes in the elderly from a single centre—a prospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg 22:12–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eker HH, Langeveld HR, Klitsie PJ et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty vs lichtenstein repair: a long-term follow-up study. Arch Surg 147(3):256–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003(1):Cd001785Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abbas AE, Abd Ellatif ME, Noaman N et al (2012) Patient-perspective quality of life after laparoscopic and open hernia repair: a controlled randomized trial. Surg Endosc 26(9):2465–2470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang WJ, Chen JZ, Fang Q, Li JF, Jin PF, Li ZT (2013) Comparison of the effects of laparoscopic hernia repair and Lichtenstein tension-free hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(4):301–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Westin L, Wollert S, Ljungdahl M, Sandblom G, Gunnarsson U, Dahlstrand U (2016) Less pain 1 year after total extra-peritoneal repair compared with lichtenstein using local anesthesia: data from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg 263(2):240–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M et al (2009) European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 13(4):343–403CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T et al (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal Hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25(9):2773CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choudhary RK, Hassn AMF (2003) NICE guidance on laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernias: guidelines are less clinical excellence than hindrance. Br Med J 326(7399):1144–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis CH, Shirkey BA, Moore LW et al (2018) Trends in laparoscopic colorectal surgery over time from 2005 to 2014 using the NSQIP database. J Surg Res 223:16–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27(7):2253–2257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hendren S, Fritze D, Banerjee M et al (2013) Antibiotic choice is independently associated with risk of surgical site infection after colectomy: a population-based cohort study. Ann Surg 257(3):469–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Waits SA, Fritze D, Banerjee M et al (2014) Developing an argument for bundled interventions to reduce surgical site infection in colorectal surgery. Surgery 155(4):602–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences DMS (1996) The Dartmouth atlas of health care. American Hospital Publishing, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    2010 Census Summary File—Michigan (2010) http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
  21. 21.
    Hernández-Irizarry R, Zendejas B, Ramirez T et al (2012) Trends in emergent inguinal hernia surgery in Olmsted County, MN: a population-based study. Hernia 16(4):397–403CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beadles CA, Meagher AD, Charles AG (2015) Trends in emergent hernia repair in the united states. JAMA Surg 150(3):194–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mehta A, Hutfless S, Blair AB et al (2017) Emergency department utilization and predictors of mortality for inpatient inguinal hernia repairs. J Surg Res 212:270–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hope WW, Bools L, Menon A, Scott CM 3rd, Adams A, Hooks WB (2013) Comparing laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in octogenarians. Hernia 17(6):719–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vigneswaran Y, Gitelis M, Lapin B et al (2015) Elderly and octogenarian cohort: comparable outcomes with nonelderly cohort after open or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs. Surgery 158(4):1137–1144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dallas KB, Froylich D, Choi JJ et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair in octogenarians: a follow-up study. Geriatr Gerontol Int 13(2):329–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCormack K, Wake BL, Fraser C, Vale L, Perez J, Grant A (2005) Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review. Hernia 9(2):109–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Physician Fee Schedule Search (2018) https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/overview.aspx. Accessed 14 April 2018
  29. 29.
    Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O et al (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. New Engl J Med 350(18):1819–1827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zerey M, Kercher KW, Sing RF et al (2007) Does a one-day course influence surgeon adoption of laparoscopic ventral herniorrhaphy? J Surg Res 138(2):205–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Greenberg JA, Jolles S, Sullivan S et al (2017) A structured, extended training program to facilitate adoption of new techniques for practicing surgeons. Surg Endosc 32:217–224Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Center for Healthcare Outcomes and PolicyAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Michigan Surgical Quality CollaborativeAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations