The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reoperation Through a Prosthetic-Reinforced Abdominal Wall and Its Association With Postoperative Outcomes and Longitudinal Health Care Utilization
Abstract
Importance: Prosthetic reinforcement of critically sized incisional hernias is necessary to decrease hernia recurrence, but long-term prosthetic-mesh footprint may increase complication risk during subsequent abdominal operations. Objective: To investigate the association of prior incisional hernia repair with mesh (IHRWM) with postoperative outcomes and health care utilization after common abdominal operations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing inpatient abdominal surgical procedures during the period of January 2009 to December 2016, with at least 1 year of follow-up within 5 geographically diverse statewide inpatient/ambulatory databases (Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, Utah). History of an abdominal operation was ascertained within the 3-year period preceding the index operation. Patients admitted to the hospital with a history of an abdominal operation (ie, bariatric, cholecystectomy, small- or large-bowel resection, prostatectomy, gynecologic) were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. Patients with prior IHRWM were propensity score matched (1:1) to controls both with and without a history of an abdominal surgical procedure based on clinical and operative characteristics. Data analysis was conducted from March 1 to November 27, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of adverse postoperative outcomes (surgical and nonsurgical). Secondary outcomes included health care utilization determined by length of hospital stay, hospital charges, and 1-year readmissions. Logistic and Cox regression determined the association of prior IHRWM with the outcomes of interest. Additional subanalyses matched and compared patients with prior IHR without mesh (IHRWOM) to those with a history of an abdominal operation. Results: Of the 914 105 patients undergoing common abdominal surgical procedures (81 123 bariatric [8.9%], 284 450 small- or large-bowel resection [31.1%], 223 768 cholecystectomy [24.5%], 33 183 prostatectomy [3.6%], and 291 581 gynecologic [31.9%]), all 3517 patients (age group: 46-55 years, 1547 [44.0%]; 2396 majority sex [68.1%]) with prior IHRWM were matched to patients without a history of abdominal surgical procedures. After matching, prior IHRWM was associated with increased overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.27-1.60), surgical complications (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.34-1.70), length of hospital stay (mean increase of 1.03 days; 95% CI, 0.56-1.49 days; P < .001), index admission charges (predicted mean difference of $11 896.10; 95% CI, $6096.80-$17 695.40; P < .001), and 1-year unplanned readmissions (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.25; P = .002). This trend persisted even when comparing matched patients with prior IHRWM to patients with a history of abdominal surgical procedures, and the treatment outcome disappeared when comparing patients with prior IHRWOM to those without a previous abdominal operation. Conclusions and Relevance: Reoperation through a previously prosthetic-reinforced abdominal wall was associated with increased surgical complications and health care utilization. This risk appeared to be independent of a history of abdominal surgical procedures and was magnified by the presence of a prosthetic-mesh footprint in the abdominal wall.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Meshes constructed of a fully resorbable polymer such as P4HB represent a potential advantage over permanent polymers due to their temporary status within the abdominal wall, both in terms of reducing possible mesh-related complications, as well as in decreasing the complexity of subsequent abdominal procedures (10, 11).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 36
- Carney, 2017, Trends in open abdominal surgery in the US—observations from 9?950?759 discharges using the 2009-2013 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) datasets., Am J Surg, 214, 287, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.01.001 · DOI
- van Ramshorst, 2012, Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study., Am J Surg, 204, 144, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012 · DOI
- Snyder, 2011, Patient satisfaction, chronic pain, and quality of life after elective incisional hernia repair: effects of recurrence and repair technique., Hernia, 15, 123, 10.1007/s10029-010-0750-4 · DOI
- Burger, 2004, Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia., Ann Surg, 240, 578, 10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7 · DOI · Paper page
- Huerta, 2016, Predictors of inguinodynia, recurrence, and metachronous hernias after inguinal herniorrhaphy in veteran patients., Am J Surg, 212, 391, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.01.036 · DOI
- Luijendijk, 2000, A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia., N Engl J Med, 343, 392, 10.1056/NEJM200008103430603 · DOI · Paper page
- Kokotovic, 2016, Long-term recurrence and complications associated with elective incisional hernia repair., JAMA, 316, 1575, 10.1001/jama.2016.15217 · DOI · Paper page
- Hooper, 2022, Patient perspectives on mesh-related complications after hernia repair., Surgery, 171, 994, 10.1016/j.surg.2021.09.022 · DOI
- Nguyen, 2014, Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: a systematic review and meta-analysis., JAMA Surg, 149, 415, 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5014 · DOI
- Mathes, 2016, Suture vs mesh repair in primary and incisional ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis., World J Surg, 40, 826, 10.1007/s00268-015-3311-2 · DOI
- Helgstrand, 2013, Nationwide prospective study on readmission after umbilical or epigastric hernia repair., Hernia, 17, 487, 10.1007/s10029-013-1120-9 · DOI
- Carbonell, 2013, Outcomes of synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs., J Am Coll Surg, 217, 991, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.382 · DOI · Paper page
- Choi, 2012, Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33,832 cases., Ann Surg, 255, 176, 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822518e6 · DOI
- Picchio, 2017, Complete mesh migration into the small bowel after incisional hernia repair: a case report and literature review., Acta Chir Belg, 117, 118, 10.1080/00015458.2016.1229399 · DOI
- Dipp Ramos, 2021, Incidence and risk factors for long-term mesh explantation due to infection in more than 100?000 hernia operation patients., J Am Coll Surg, 232, 872, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.12.064 · DOI
- Sosin, 2018, The perfect plane: a systematic review of mesh location and outcomes, update 2018., Plast Reconstr Surg, 142, 107S, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004864 · DOI · Paper page
- Schneeberger, 2020, No-touch technique of mesh placement in ventral hernia repair: minimizing postoperative mesh infections., Plast Reconstr Surg, 145, 1288, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006767 · DOI
- Ramirez, 1990, “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study., Plast Reconstr Surg, 86, 519, 10.1097/00006534-199009000-00023 · DOI · Paper page
- de Vries Reilingh, 2007, Repair of giant midline abdominal wall hernias: “components separation technique” vs prosthetic repair: interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial., World J Surg, 31, 756, 10.1007/s00268-006-0502-x · DOI
- Itani, 2012, Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: the RICH Study., Surgery, 152, 498, 10.1016/j.surg.2012.04.008 · DOI · Paper page
- Janis, 2012, Acellular dermal matrices in abdominal wall reconstruction: a systematic review of the current evidence., Plast Reconstr Surg, 130, 183S, 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182605cfc · DOI
- Messa, 2019, When the mesh goes away: an analysis of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh for complex hernia repair., Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 7, 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002576 · DOI
- von Elm, 2007, The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies., Lancet, 370, 1453, 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X · DOI · Paper page
- Austin, 2009, Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations., Biom J, 51, 171, 10.1002/bimj.v51:1 · DOI
- Rios-Diaz, 2021, Incidence, burden on the health care system, and factors associated with incisional hernia after trauma laparotomy., JAMA Surg, 156, 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3104 · DOI
- Poulose, 2012, Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research., Hernia, 16, 179, 10.1007/s10029-011-0879-9 · DOI · Paper page
- Cherla, 2017, Recurrence and mesh-related complications after incisional hernia repair., JAMA, 317, 536, 10.1001/jama.2016.20112 · DOI
- López-Cano, 2018, Balancing mesh-related complications and benefits in primary ventral and incisional hernia surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis., PLoS One, 13, 10.1371/journal.pone.0197813 · DOI
- Burger, 2006, Evaluation of new prosthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair., Surg Endosc, 20, 1320, 10.1007/s00464-005-0706-4 · DOI
- Hu, 2019, Mussel-inspired copolymer-coated polypropylene mesh with antiadhesion efficiency for abdominal wall defect repair., Biomater Sci, 7, 1323, 10.1039/C8BM01198B · DOI
- ten Broek, 2013, Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis., BMJ, 347, f5588, 10.1136/bmj.f5588 · DOI · Paper page
- Coleman, 2000, Impact of previous surgery on time taken for incision and division of adhesions during laparotomy., Dis Colon Rectum, 43, 1297, 10.1007/BF02237441 · DOI
- Snyder, 2011, Effect of mesh type and position on subsequent abdominal operations after incisional hernia repair., J Am Coll Surg, 212, 496, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.004 · DOI
- Rios-Diaz, 2021, Early clinical and patient-reported outcomes of a new hybrid mesh for incisional hernia repair., J Surg Res, 265, 49, 10.1016/j.jss.2021.03.030 · DOI
- Lanni, 2018, The state of prophylactic mesh augmentation., Am Surg, 84, 99, 10.1177/000313481808400129 · DOI
- Harji, 2021, A systematic review of outcome reporting in incisional hernia surgery., BJS Open, 5, 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab006 · DOI
Cited by
Deeken, C. R., Rosen, M. J., Poulose, B. K., Bradbury, K., Huang, L.-C., Ma, J., & Badhwar, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Surgery · doi:10.3389/fsurg.2023.1280991 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Rios-Diaz, A. J., Cunning, J. R., Talwar, A. A., Christopher, A., Broach, R. B., Hsu, J. Y., Morris, J. B., & Fischer, J. P.
- Affiliations
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Venue
- JAMA Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2022-10-01
- Volume
- 157
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 908
- ISSN
- 2168-6254
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.