Comparison of hernia registries: the CORE project

Abstract

IntroductionThe aim of the international CORE project was to explore the databases of the existing hernia registries and compare them in content and outcome variables.MethodsThe CORE project was initiated with representatives from all established hernia registries (Danish Hernia Database, Swedish Hernia Registry, Herniamed, EuraHS, Club Hernie, EVEREG, AHSQC) in March 2015 in Berlin. The following categories were used to compare the registries: initiation and funding, data collection and use for certification of hernia centers, patient data and data protection, operative data, registration of complications and follow-up data.ResultsThe Danish Hernia Database is the only one to qualify as a genuine national registry where participation is compulsory for entry of all procedures by all surgeons performing a hernia operation. All other registries have to be considered as voluntary and completeness of data depends upon the participating hospitals and surgeons. Only the Danish Hernia Database and the Swedish Hernia Registry are publicly funded. All other registries are reliant on financial support from the medical technology industry. As an incentive for voluntary participation in a hernia registry, hospitals or surgeons are issued a certificate confirming that they are taking part in a quality assurance study for hernia surgery. Due to data protection and privacy regulations, most registries are obliged or have chosen to enter their patient data anonymously or coded. The Danish Hernia Database and Swedish Hernia Registry utilize a national personal patient code. In the Herniamed Registry, patient data are saved in a coded and anonymous format after obtaining the patient’s informed consent.ConclusionDespite the differences in the way data are collected for each of the listed hernia registries, the data are indispensable in clinical research.

Defining the characteristics of certified hernia centers in Italy: The Italian society of hernia and abdominal wall surgery workgroup consensus on systematic reviews of the best available evidences

“…For this reason along with relatively low volume threshold we fixed a higher level of complexity that ultimately would reflect the central role of these structure [104] Being recurrence rate the most important quality indicator in hernia surgery is recurrence rate. Great debate has been raised in the past years concerning the way to correctly express this outcome and the important effect exerted by diagnostic techniques and type and rate of follow-up, as well as the attitude of the surgeon and patients towards reintervention [105]. When deciding the source to derive our parameters, we acknowledged that national registries would offer complete and reliable data, in particular those coming from countries like Denmark and Sweden, where patients can be tracked from hospital to hospital with a national M A N U S C R I P T…”

What is the outcome of re-recurrent vs recurrent inguinal hernia repairs? An analysis of 16,206 patients from the Herniamed Registry

“…The Herniamed quality assurance study is a multicenter, internet-based hernia registry [18,19] into which 683 participating hospitals and surgeons engaged in private practice (Herniamed Study Group) in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (Status: August 1, 2018) have entered data prospectively on their patients who had undergone routine hernia surgery [20,21]. All patients signed an informed consent agreeing to participate [20,21].…”

The reality of general surgery training and increased complexity of abdominal wall hernia surgery

“…Based on the available literature, this manuscript aims to first identify factors contributing to the increasing complexity of abdominal wall surgery. Data from the Herniamed Registry and its recognized value are used to determine the proportion of these risk factors applicable to abdominal wall surgery [17,18]. A collective agreement is then reached to establish whether the requirements for the treatment of the more complex abdominal wall hernias are being met by general surgery training across Europe to then possibly help further, by more objectively enabling surgeons to independently perform these procedures after the appropriate training.…”