, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 509–516 | Cite as

Surgical outcome of mesh and suture repair in primary umbilical hernia: postoperative complications and recurrence

  • A. WinsnesEmail author
  • M. M. Haapamäki
  • U. Gunnarsson
  • K. Strigård
Original Article



To compare recurrence and surgical complications following two dominating techniques: the use of suture and mesh in umbilical hernia repair.


379 consecutive umbilical hernia repair procedures performed between 1 January 2005 and 14 March 2014 in a university setting were included. Gathering was made using International Classification of Diseases codes for both procedure and diagnosis. Each patient record was scrutinized with respect to 45 variables, and the results entered in a database.


Exclusion <18 years-of-age (32), non-primary umbilical hernia (25), wrong diagnosis (7), concomitant major abdominal surgery (5), double registration (3) and pregnancy (1) left 306 patients eligible for analysis. Gender distribution was 97 women and 209 men. There was no difference between mesh and suture with regard to the primary outcome variable, cumulative recurrence rate, 8.4 %. Recurrence was both self-reported and found on clinical revisit and defined as recurrence when verified by a clinician and/or radiologist. Results presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) show a significantly higher risk for recurrence in patients with a coexisting hernia OR 2.84, 95 % CI 1.24–6.48. Secondary outcome, postoperative surgical complication (n = 51 occurrences), included an array of postoperative surgical events commencing within 30 days after surgery. Complication rate was significantly higher in patients receiving mesh repair OR 6.63, 95 % CI 2.29–20.38.


Suture repair decreases the risk for surgical complications, especially infection without an increase in recurrence rate. The risk for recurrence is increased in patients with a history of another hernia.


Hernia Umbilical Recurrence Surgical complication Suture Mesh 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

AW, MH, UG and KS declare no conflict of interest. The sponsors had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or in the writing of this report.


  1. 1.
    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, Smietański M, Sommeling C, Tollens T, Vierendeels T, Kingsnorth A (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13(4):407–414. doi: 10.1007/s10029-009-0518-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dabbas N, Adams K, Pearson K, Royle G (2011) Frequency of abdominal wall hernias: is classical teaching out of date? JRSM Short Rep 2(1):5. doi: 10.1258/shorts.2010.010071 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poulose BK, Shelton J, Phillips S, Moore D, Nealon W, Penson D, Beck W, Holzman MD (2012) Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research. Hernia 16(2):179–183. doi: 10.1007/s10029-011-0879-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colavita PD, Belyansky I, Walters AL, Zemlyak AY, Lincourt AE, Heniford BT, Augenstein VA (2014) Umbilical hernia repair with mesh: identifying effectors of ideal outcomes. Am J Surg 208(3):342–349. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.12.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arroyo A, García P, Pérez F, Andreu J, Candela F, Calpena R (2001) Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 88(10):1321–1323. doi: 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01893.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luijendijk RW, Lemmen MH, Hop WC, Wereldsma JC (1997) Incisional hernia recurrence following “vest-over-pants” or vertical Mayo repair of primary hernias of the midline. World J Surg 21(1):62–65 (discussion 66) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aslani N, Brown CJ (2010) Does mesh offer an advantage over tissue in the open repair of umbilical hernias? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 14(5):455–462. doi: 10.1007/s10029-010-0705-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC, Davila JA, Li LT, Kao LS, Liang MK (2014) Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 149(5):415–421. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erritzøe-Jervild L, Christoffersen MW, Helgstrand F, Bisgaard T (2013) Long-term complaints after elective repair for small umbilical or epigastric hernias. Hernia 17(2):211–215. doi: 10.1007/s10029-012-0960-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Witherspoon P, O’Dwyer PJ (2005) Surgeon perspectives on options for ventral abdominal wall hernia repair: results of a postal questionnaire. Hernia 9(3):259–262. doi: 10.1007/s10029-005-0331-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mayo WJ (1901) VI. An operation for the radical cure of umbilical hernia. Ann Surg 34(2):276–280CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moore TC, Siderys H (1955) The use of pliable plastics in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Ann Surg 142(6):973–979CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tollens T, Den Hondt M, Devroe K, Terry C, Speybroeck S, Aelvoet C, Vanrykel JP (2011) Retrospective analysis of umbilical, epigastric, and small incisional hernia repair using the Ventralex hernia patch. Hernia 15(5):531–540. doi: 10.1007/s10029-011-0816-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berrevoet F, D’Hont F, Rogiers X, Troisi R, de Hemptinne B (2011) Open intraperitoneal versus retromuscular mesh repair for umbilical hernias less than 3 cm diameter. Am J Surg 201(1):85–90. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.01.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dalenbäck J, Andersson C, Ribokas D, Rimbäck G (2013) Long-term follow-up after elective adult umbilical hernia repair: low recurrence rates also after non-mesh repairs. Hernia 17(4):493–497. doi: 10.1007/s10029-012-0988-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Christoffersen MW, Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Strandfelt P, Bisgaard T (2014) Long-term recurrence and chronic pain after repair for small umbilical or epigastric hernias: a regional cohort study. Am J Surg. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.05.021 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iversen E, Lykke A, Hensler M, Jorgensen LN (2010) Abdominal wall hernia repair with a composite ePTFE/polypropylene mesh: clinical outcome and quality of life in 152 patients. Hernia 14(6):555–560. doi: 10.1007/s10029-010-0729-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Köhler G, Luketina RR, Emmanuel K (2014) Sutured repair of primary small umbilical and epigastric hernias: concomitant rectus diastasis is a significant risk factor for recurrence. World J Surg. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2765-y Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Usher FC, Wallace SA (1958) Tissue reaction to plastics: a comparison of nylon, orlon, dacron, teflon, and marlex. AMA Arch Surg 76(6):997–999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335(7624):806–808. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zöller B, Ji J, Sundquist J, Sundquist K (2013) Shared and nonshared familial susceptibility to surgically treated inguinal hernia, femoral hernia, incisional hernia, epigastric hernia, and umbilical hernia. J Am Coll Surg 217(2):289–299. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.04.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bringman S, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, Deprest J, Junge K, Klosterhalfen B, Parra-Davila E, Ramshaw B, Schumpelick V (2010) Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshes. Hernia 14(1):81–87. doi: 10.1007/s10029-009-0587-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Köhler 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(1):121–126. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2765-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Emanuelsson P (2014) Alternatives in the treatment of rectus muscle diastasis––an evaluation. Dissertation, Karolinska Institute ISBN 9789175497150 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Emanuelsson P, Gunnarsson U, Strigård K, Stark B (2014) Early complications, pain, and quality of life after reconstructive surgery for abdominal rectus muscle diastasis: a 3-month follow-up. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(8):1082–1088. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.04.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Winsnes
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. M. Haapamäki
    • 1
  • U. Gunnarsson
    • 1
  • K. Strigård
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical and Perioperative SciencesUmeå University and University Hospital of UmeåUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations