TY - JOUR
T1 - Ventral hernia management
T2 - Expert consensus guided by systematic review
AU - Liang, Mike K.
AU - Holihan, Julie L.
AU - Itani, Kamal
AU - Alawadi, Zeinab M.
AU - Gonzalez, Juan R.Flores
AU - Askenasy, Erik P.
AU - Ballecer, Conrad
AU - Chong, Hui Sen
AU - Goldblatt, Matthew I.
AU - Greenberg, Jacob A.
AU - Harvin, John A.
AU - Keith, Jerrod N.
AU - Martindale, Robert G.
AU - Orenstein, Sean
AU - Richmond, Bryan
AU - Roth, John Scott
AU - Szotek, Paul
AU - Towfigh, Shirin
AU - Tsuda, Shawn
AU - Vaziri, Khashayar
AU - Berger, David H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Objective: To achieve consensus on the best practices in the management of ventral hernias (VH). Background: Management patterns for VH are heterogeneous, often with little supporting evidence or correlation with existing evidence. Methods: A systematic review identified the highest level of evidence available for each topic. A panel of expert hernia-surgeons was assembled. Email questionnaires, evidence review, panel discussion, and iterative voting was performed. Consensus was when all experts agreed on a management strategy. Results: Experts agreed that complications with VH repair (VHR) increase in obese patients (grade A), current smokers (grade A), and patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) ≥6.5% (grade B). Elective VHR was not recommended for patients with BMI≥ 50 kg/m2 (grade C), current smokers (grade A), or patients with HbA1C ≥8.0% (grade B). Patients with BMI=30-50 kg/m2 or HbA1C = 6.5-8.0% require individualized interventions to reduce surgical risk (grade C, grade B). Nonoperative management was considered to have a low-risk of short-term morbidity (grade C). Mesh reinforcement was recommended for repair of hernias≥2 cm (grade A). There were several areas where high-quality data were limited, and no consensus could be reached, including mesh type, component separation technique, and management of complex patients. Conclusions: Although there was consensus, supported by grade A-C evidence, on patient selection, the safety of short-term nonoperative management, and mesh reinforcement, among experts; there was limited evidence and broad variability in practice patterns in all other areas of practice. The lack of strong evidence and expert consensus on these topics has identified gaps in knowledge where there is need of further evidence.
AB - Objective: To achieve consensus on the best practices in the management of ventral hernias (VH). Background: Management patterns for VH are heterogeneous, often with little supporting evidence or correlation with existing evidence. Methods: A systematic review identified the highest level of evidence available for each topic. A panel of expert hernia-surgeons was assembled. Email questionnaires, evidence review, panel discussion, and iterative voting was performed. Consensus was when all experts agreed on a management strategy. Results: Experts agreed that complications with VH repair (VHR) increase in obese patients (grade A), current smokers (grade A), and patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) ≥6.5% (grade B). Elective VHR was not recommended for patients with BMI≥ 50 kg/m2 (grade C), current smokers (grade A), or patients with HbA1C ≥8.0% (grade B). Patients with BMI=30-50 kg/m2 or HbA1C = 6.5-8.0% require individualized interventions to reduce surgical risk (grade C, grade B). Nonoperative management was considered to have a low-risk of short-term morbidity (grade C). Mesh reinforcement was recommended for repair of hernias≥2 cm (grade A). There were several areas where high-quality data were limited, and no consensus could be reached, including mesh type, component separation technique, and management of complex patients. Conclusions: Although there was consensus, supported by grade A-C evidence, on patient selection, the safety of short-term nonoperative management, and mesh reinforcement, among experts; there was limited evidence and broad variability in practice patterns in all other areas of practice. The lack of strong evidence and expert consensus on these topics has identified gaps in knowledge where there is need of further evidence.
KW - Consensus
KW - Guidelines
KW - Incisional hernia
KW - Umbilical hernia
KW - Ventral hernia
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961226347&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961226347&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701
DO - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28009730
AN - SCOPUS:84961226347
SN - 0003-4932
VL - 265
SP - 80
EP - 89
JO - Annals of Surgery
JF - Annals of Surgery
IS - 1
ER -