Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of the SAGES Outcomes Initiative groin hernia database

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In 1999, the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) introduced the SAGES Outcomes Initiative as a way for its members to track their own outcomes. It contains perioperative and postoperative data on nearly 20,000 operations. This report provides a descriptive analysis of the groin hernia database.

Methods

The SAGES Outcomes Initiative database was accessed for all groin hernia cases from September 1999 to February 2005. The data from the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative entries were summarized. These data are purely descriptive and no statistical analysis was done.

Results

The hernia registry contains 1,607 entries, with 1,070 follow-up entries. Males comprised 85% of patients, 63% were employed, 62% had at least one comorbidity, with 84% ASA class I or II. Primary, unilateral hernia accounted for 86% of cases, whereas 14% were recurrent, 11% bilateral, 6% incarcerated, and 3% required emergency repair. The operating surgeon was the attending surgeon in 83% of cases. Anesthetic techniques were general anesthesia in 74% of cases, regional in 7%, and local in 34%, with only 16% of cases local only. Most patients had symptomatic hernias and symptoms were improved in more than 95% of patients. Most repairs were open, although 45% were endoscopic. The most frequently cited postoperative event was significant bruising (6%), with more than 99% of complications being class I or II. More than 95% of patients were able to return to work by the first postoperative visit. Patients who underwent endoscopic repair were reported to have fewer days of narcotic use than patients undergoing open repairs (0 vs 3).

Conclusions

First analysis of the SAGES Outcomes Initiative groin hernia database demonstrates that (a) this is one of the largest prospective; voluntary hernia registries; (b) missing data are infrequent; and (c) the data are similar to published data from national, mandatory registries and randomized trials. Although the SAGES Outcomes Initiative is a voluntary registry, initially designed for surgeon self-assessment, and it therefore has the potential for methodological concerns inherent to voluntary registries, the findings from this first analysis are encouraging. Efforts are ongoing to simplify data entry (PDA), refine data parameters, increase surgeon participation, and determine the role of data audit and thereby the potential for clinical research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Atkinson HD, Nicol SG, Purkayastha S, Paterson-Brown S (2004) Surgical management of inguinal hernia: retrospective cohort study in southeastern Scotland, 1985–2001. Br Med J 329: 1315–1316

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aufenacker TJ, de Lange DH, Burg MK, Kuiken BW, Hensen EF, Schoo IG, Gouma DJ, Simons MP (2005) Hernia surgery changes in the Amsterdam region 1994–2001: decrease in operations for recurrent hernia. Hernia 9: 46–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bozuk M, Schuster R, Stewart D, Hicks K, Greaney G, Waxman K (2003) Disability and chronic pain after open mesh and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am Surg 69: 839–841

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111: 518–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Lange DH, Aufenacker TJ, Roest M, Simmermacher RK, Gouma DJ, Simons MP (2005) Inguinal hernia surgery in the Netherlands: a baseline study before the introduction of the Dutch guidelines. Hernia 9: 172–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Douek M, Smith G, Oshowo A, Stoker DL, Wellwood JM (2003) Prospective randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia mesh repair: five year follow up. Br Med J 326: 1012–1013

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fujita F, Lahmann B, Otsuka K, Lyass S, Hiatt JR, Phillips EH (2004) Quantification of pain and satisfaction following laparoscopic and open hernia repair. Arch Surg 139: 596–600

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grant AM, Scott NW, O’Dwyer PJ, MRC laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group (2004) Five-year follow-up of a randomized trial to assess pain and numbness after laparoscopic or open repair of groin hernia. Br J Surg 91: 1570–1574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heydorn WH, Velanovich V (1990) A five-year U.S. Army experience with 36,250 abdominal hernia repairs. Am Surg 56: 596–600

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kehlet H, Bay Nielsen M (2005) Anaesthetic practice for groin hernia repair—a nation-wide study in Denmark 1998–2003. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 49: 143–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Khaitan L, Apelgren K, Hunter J, Traverso LW (2003) A report on the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons Outcomes Initiative: what have we learned and what is the potential? Surg Endosc 17: 365–370

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar S, Foo Wong P, Melling A, Leaper DJ (2004) Surgical site infection after groin hernia repair. Br J Surg 91: 105–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM, EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD001785

  14. Mikkelsen T, Werner MU, Lassen B, Kehlet H (2004) Pain and sensory dysfunction 6 to 12 months after inguinal herniotomy. Anesth Analg 99: 146–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morton JM, Galanko JA, Soper NJ, Low DE, Hunter J, Traverso LW (2005) NIS vs SAGES: a comparison of national and voluntary databases. Surg Endosc, in press

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nilsson E, Haapaniemi S (1998) Hernia registries and specialization. Surg Clin North Am 78: 1141–1155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nilsson E, Haapaniemi S (2002) Assessing the quality of hernia repair. In: Nyhus L, Condon RE (eds) Hernia, 5th ed.

  18. O’Riordan DC, Kingsnorth AN (1998) Audit of patient outcomes after herniorrhaphy. Surg Clin North Am 78: 1129–1139

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Orringer MB (2001) STS database activities and you: “what’s in it for me?” Ann Thorac Surg 72: 1–2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stengel D, Bauwens K, Ekkernkamp A (2004) Recurrence risks in randomized trials of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repairs: to pool or not to pool (this is not the question). Langenbecks Arch Surg 389: 492–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tayor EW, Duffy K, Lee K, Hill R, Noone A, Macintyre I, King PM, O’Dwyer PJ (2004) Surgical site infection after groin hernia repair. Br J Surg 19: 105–111

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wake B, McCormack K, Fraser C, Vale L, Perez J, Grant A (2005) Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) vs totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD004703

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Surgery, K-8, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    V. Velanovich & L. W. Traverso (for the SAGES Outcomes ommittee)

  2. Durham Surgical Associates, Durham, NC, USA

    P. Shadduck

  3. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    L. Khaitan

  4. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    J. Morton

  5. Whisper Communications, Kingston, WA, USA

    G. Maupin

Authors
  1. V. Velanovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Shadduck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Khaitan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Morton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Maupin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. W. Traverso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Velanovich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Velanovich, V., Shadduck, P., Khaitan, L. et al. Analysis of the SAGES Outcomes Initiative groin hernia database. Surg Endosc 20, 191–198 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0436-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0436-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation