Advertisement

Hernia

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 995–1001 | Cite as

Understanding the patient perspective after ventral hernia repair

  • T.-H. J. Lee
  • K. L. Ulisney
  • A. K. Choudhuri
  • J. L. Swiger
  • G. J. GibeilyEmail author
Original Article
  • 122 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Forum on primary midline uncomplicated ventral hernia

Abstract

Purpose

More than 350,000 ventral hernia repairs are performed in the U.S. each year. However, long-term quality of life of patients living with hernia repair is less known. Follow-up using patient-reported outcomes (measures) is an important representation of the patient experience and can inform quality improvements of hernia treatments. This study aims to understand the patients’ experience after ventral hernia repair, to enhance quality of care and long-term hernia treatment outcomes.

Methods

To better understand long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair and to enhance an existing PRO tool, two rounds of semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. In total, 22 patients who had ventral hernia repair were enrolled. The patient perspectives obtained were grouped into themes to inform the further development of the PRO tool. Data were transcribed and analyzed using atlas.ti and Microsoft Word.

Results

Ten major themes were identified in this analysis. Patients’ quality of life was impacted by hernia repairs and hernia recurrences, including chronic pain, effects on daily activities and social relationships, and the challenge in finding new treatments. The lack of provider–patient communication and patient understanding of hernia repairs highlighted the need for providing patients with more comprehensive information regarding repair options and outcomes prior to surgery.

Conclusion

PRO assessments and meaningful communications between the physician and the patient can provide a comprehensive benefit–risk assessment prior to surgery, and may also improve patient understanding of what to expect during recovery from surgery.

Keywords

Ventral hernia Patient-reported outcomes Hernia repair Quality of life Food Drug Administration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Benjamin Poulose and Dr. Michael Rosen of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative for their significant contributions to this work.

Funding

No funds or support has been received for this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent for participation was obtained before the interviews began.

References

  1. 1.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0879-9 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baylon K, Rodriguez-Camarillo P, Elias-Zuniga A, Diaz-Elizondo JA, Gilkerson R, Lozano K (2017) Past, present and future of surgical meshes: a review. Membranes.  https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes7030047 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bleier JIS, Resnick AS (2009) Complications of incisional hernia repair. Semin Colon Rect Surg 20(3):125–130.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.scrs.2009.06.004 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (2017) FDA executive summary: documents for patient engagement in medical device clinical trials meetingGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal RegisterGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baucom RB, Ousley J, Feurer ID, Beveridge GB, Pierce RA, Holzman MD, Sharp KW, Poulose BK (2016) Patient reported outcomes after incisional hernia repair-establishing the ventral hernia recurrence inventory. Am J Surg 212(1):81–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.06.007 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (2016) FAQs. https://www.ahsqc.org/faqs. Accessed Sep 2016
  8. 8.
    Leidy NK, Wilcox TK, Jones PW, Murray L, Winnette R, Howard K, Petrillo J, Powers J, Sethi S, Group E-PS (2010) Development of the EXAcerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT): a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure. Value Health 13(8):965–975.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00772.x Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Leidy NK, Patrick DL, Petrie CD (2009) Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health 12(8):1075–1083.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00603.x Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B (2008) Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 204(6):291–295.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patrick DLBL, Gwaltney CJ et al (2011) Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 14:967–977Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2018) MedSun: medical product safety network. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/MedSunMedicalProductSafetyNetwork/default.htm. Accessed 5 Feb 2018
  13. 13.
    Friese S (2017) ATLAS.ti 8 Windows user manual. Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ha JF (2010) Doctor-patient communication: a review. Ochsner J 10(1):38–43Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friedman AJ, Cosby R, Boyko S, Hatton-Bauer J, Turnbull G (2011) Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: a systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J Cancer Educ 26(1):12–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0183-x Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stern C, Lockwood C (2005) Knowledge retention from preoperative patient information. Int J Evid Based Healthc 3(3):45–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00021.x Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rotenstein LS, Huckman RS, Wagle NW (2017) Making patients and doctors happier—the potential of patient-reported outcomes. N Engl J Med 377(14):1309–1312.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1707537 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Devices and Radiological HealthU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations