, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 767–770 | Cite as

Umbilical hernia repair in pregnant patients: review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

  • I. N. Haskins
  • M. J. Rosen
  • A. S. Prabhu
  • R. L. Amdur
  • S. Rosenblatt
  • F. Brody
  • D. M. Krpata
Original Article



Umbilical hernias present commonly during pregnancy secondary to increased intra-abdominal pressure. As a result, umbilical hernia incarceration or strangulation may affect pregnant females. The purpose of this study is to detail the operative management and 30-day outcomes of umbilical hernias in pregnant patients using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP).


All female patients undergoing umbilical hernia repair during pregnancy were identified within the ACS-NSQIP. Preoperative patient variables, intraoperative variables, and 30-day patient morbidity and mortality outcomes were investigated using a variety of statistical tests.


A total of 126 pregnant patients underwent umbilical hernia repair from 2005 to 2014; 73 (58%) had incarceration or strangulation at the time of surgical intervention. The majority of patients (95%) underwent open umbilical hernia repair. Superficial surgical site infection was the most common morbidity in patients undergoing open umbilical hernia repair.


Based on review of the ACS-NSQIP database, the incidence of umbilical hernia repair during pregnancy is very low; however, the majority of patients required repair for incarceration of strangulation. When symptoms develop, these hernias can be repaired with minimal 30-day morbidity to the mother. Additional studies are needed to determine the long-term recurrence rate of umbilical hernia repairs performed in pregnant patients and the effects of surgical intervention and approach on the fetus.


Acute abdomen Incarceration Pregnancy Strangulation Umbilical hernia 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

INH declares no conflict of interest directly related to this work but is the recipient of the Americas Hernia Society Resident Research Grant. MJR declares no conflict of interest directly related to this work but is the Medical Director for the AHSQC, receives consulting fees for Bard and Artiste, and has received grant funding from Miromatrix and Intuitive Surgical, Inc. ASP declares no conflict of interest directly related to this work but is a consultant for Bard and MedTronic and has received grant funding from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. RLA declares no conflict of interest. SR declares no conflict of interest. FB declares no conflict of interest. DMK declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required for this study.

Human and animal rights

This study does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this study.


  1. 1.
    Buch KE, Tabrizian P, Divino CM (2008) Management of hernias in pregnancy. J Am Coll Surg 207(4):539–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salameh JR (2008) Primary and unusual abdominal wall hernias. Surg Clin N Am 88(1):45–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Augustin G, Majerovic M (2007) Non-obstetrical acute abdomen during pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 131(1):4–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pregnancy Statistics. Accessed April 5, 2017
  5. 5.
    Cox TC, Huntington CR, Blair LJ, Prasad T et al (2016) Laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy versus open: a study in 1999 pregnant patients. Surg Endosc 30:593–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File. Accessed July 14, 2016
  7. 7.
    Jensen KK, Henriksen NA, Jorgensen LN (2015) Abdominal wall hernia and pregnancy: a systematic review. Hernia 19(5):689–696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oma E, Jensen KK, Jorgensen LN (2016) Recurrent umbilical or epigastric hernia during and after pregnancy: a nationwide cohort study. Surgery 159(6):1677–1683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arroya A, Garcia P, Perez F, Andreu J et al (2001) Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 88(10):1321–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanjay P, Reid TD, Davies EL, Arumugam PJ et al (2005) Retrospective comparison of mesh and sutured repair for adult umbilical hernias. Hernia 9(3):248–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen-Kerem R, Railton C, Oren D, Lishner M et al (2005) Pregnancy outcome following non-obstetric surgical intervention. Am J Surg 190(3):467–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Odibo I (2013) Non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy. powerpoint. Little Rock, AR: Division of Maternal-Fetal MedicineGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    VandeVelde M, DeBuck F (2007) Anesthesia for non-obstetric surgery in the pregnant patient. Minerva Anestesiol 73(4):235–240Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. N. Haskins
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. J. Rosen
    • 1
  • A. S. Prabhu
    • 1
  • R. L. Amdur
    • 2
  • S. Rosenblatt
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. Brody
    • 2
  • D. M. Krpata
    • 1
  1. 1.Comprehensive Hernia Center, Digestive Disease and Surgery InstituteThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryThe George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations