No abstract

Introduction Umbilical hernia repair (UHR) using mesh has been demonstrated to significantly reduce recurrence. However, many surgical centers still perform tissue repair for UH. In the present study, we assessed a cohort of veteran patients undergoing a standard open tissue repair for primary UH to determine at which size recurrence may preclude tissue repair. A systematic review of the literature on hernia size recommendations to guide mesh placement was performed. Methods A single-institution single-surgeon retrospective review of all patients undergoing open tissue repair of primary UH (n = 344) was undertaken at the VA North Texas Health Care System between 2005 and 2019. Guidelines for the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis were undertaken for systematic review. Results A literature review yielded inconsistent guidance for a specific hernia size to proceed with tissue vs. mesh repair. Our institutional review yielded 17 (4.9%) recurrences. Univariable analysis demonstrated recurrence to be associated with hernia size (2.8 vs. 2.3 cm; P = .04). However, on multivariable analysis, hernia size was demonstrated as not an independent predictor of recurrence [OR 1.47 (95% CI; .97-2.21; P = .07)]. Conclusion A review of the literature suggests mesh placement most commonly when the hernia size is > 2.0 cm; however, sources of evidence are heterogeneous in study design, patient population, and hernia types studied. Our institutional review demonstrated that primary UHs < 2.3 cm can successfully be treated via tissue repair. Larger, recurrent, incisional, and primary epigastric hernias may benefit from mesh placement.

No abstract

Background Local anesthesia (LA) for open umbilical hernia tissue repair (OUHTR) is not widely utilized in academic centers in the United States. We hypothesize that LA for OUHTR is feasible in a veteran patient population. Methods From 2015 to 2019, 449 umbilical hernias were repaired at our institution utilizing a standardized technique in veteran patients. OUHTR was included in this analysis (n = 283). Since 2017, 18.7% (n = 53) UH were repaired under LA. We compared outcomes and operative times between general anesthesia and LA in patients undergoing OUHTR. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine significance. Results The entire cohort was composed of older (56.3 ± 12.1 years), White (75.5%), obese (body mass index [BMI] = 32.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2) men (98.0%). The average hernia size for the entire cohort was 2.42 ± 1.2 cm. The groups were similar in age and BMI. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) (Odds ratio [OR] 3.1; 95% CI 1.5-6.8) and cardiovascular disease (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.0-7.2) were more likely to receive LA. Recurrence (0.0% vs 6.0%; P = .9) and 30-day complications (6.0% vs 13%; P = .9) were similar between LA and GA after correcting for hernia size. Operating room times were reduced in the LA group (17.7 minutes; P < .05). None of the patients with LA required postanesthesia care unit for recovery. The patients who received LA reported being comfortable (78.9% of patients), with the worst reported pain being 2.4 ± 2.4 (out of a scale of 10), and 94.7% would elect to receive LA if they had another hernia repair. Conclusion Patients who received LA had more cardiac disease and a higher ASA. Complications were similar between both groups. LA reduced operating room times. Patients were satisfied with LA.