Surgical outcome of mesh and suture repair in primary umbilical hernia: postoperative complications and recurrence
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.
KeywordsHernia 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.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
- 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
- 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.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
- 25.Emanuelsson P (2014) Alternatives in the treatment of rectus muscle diastasis––an evaluation. Dissertation, Karolinska Institute ISBN 9789175497150 Google Scholar