The Impact of a Specialized Hernia Center and Standardized Practices on Surgical Outcomes in Hernia Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira, A. C. Rasador, D. L. Lima, R. Nogueira, V. Sanha, J. Kasakewitch, L. T. Cavazzola, P. Sreeramoju, F. Malcher
{"title":"The Impact of a Specialized Hernia Center and Standardized Practices on Surgical Outcomes in Hernia Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira, A. C. Rasador, D. L. Lima, R. Nogueira, V. Sanha, J. Kasakewitch, L. T. Cavazzola, P. Sreeramoju, F. Malcher","doi":"10.3389/jaws.2024.13270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Hernia registries report that guidelines are not always implemented by general surgeons and suggest that the success rate of this procedure is higher in hernia specialty centers. There are many definitions of hernia centers, but their objectives consist of improving healthcare by homogenizing the clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze hernia centers’ definitions and compare hernia centers with non-specialized centers.Material and Methods: Cochrane Central, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies defining a hernia center or comparing hernia centers and non-specialized centers. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, surgical site events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and operative time. We performed subgroup analyses of hernia type. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio.Results: 3,260 studies were screened and 88 were thoroughly reviewed. Thirteen studies were included. Five studies defined a hernia center and eight studies, comprising 141,366 patients, compared a hernia center with a non-specialized center. Generally, the definitions were similar in decision-making and educational requirements but differed in structural aspects and the steps required for the certification. We found lower recurrence rates for hernia centers for both inguinal (1.08% versus 5.11%; RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.23; p < 0.001) and ventral hernia (3.2% vs. 8.9%; RR 0.425; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64; p < 0.001). Hernia centers also presented lower surgical site infection for both ventral (4.3% vs. 11.9%; RR 0.435; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90; p = 0.026) and inguinal (0.1% vs. 0.52%; RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.99; p = 0.49) repair.Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis support that a hernia center establishment improves postoperative outcomes data.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024522263, PROSPERO CRD42024522263.","PeriodicalId":502716,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery","volume":"80 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/jaws.2024.13270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Hernia registries report that guidelines are not always implemented by general surgeons and suggest that the success rate of this procedure is higher in hernia specialty centers. There are many definitions of hernia centers, but their objectives consist of improving healthcare by homogenizing the clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze hernia centers’ definitions and compare hernia centers with non-specialized centers.Material and Methods: Cochrane Central, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies defining a hernia center or comparing hernia centers and non-specialized centers. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, surgical site events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and operative time. We performed subgroup analyses of hernia type. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio.Results: 3,260 studies were screened and 88 were thoroughly reviewed. Thirteen studies were included. Five studies defined a hernia center and eight studies, comprising 141,366 patients, compared a hernia center with a non-specialized center. Generally, the definitions were similar in decision-making and educational requirements but differed in structural aspects and the steps required for the certification. We found lower recurrence rates for hernia centers for both inguinal (1.08% versus 5.11%; RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.23; p < 0.001) and ventral hernia (3.2% vs. 8.9%; RR 0.425; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64; p < 0.001). Hernia centers also presented lower surgical site infection for both ventral (4.3% vs. 11.9%; RR 0.435; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90; p = 0.026) and inguinal (0.1% vs. 0.52%; RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.99; p = 0.49) repair.Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis support that a hernia center establishment improves postoperative outcomes data.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024522263, PROSPERO CRD42024522263.
疝气专科中心和标准化操作对疝气手术结果的影响:系统回顾与元分析
目的:疝气登记报告显示,普通外科医生并不总能执行相关指南,而且疝气专科中心的手术成功率更高。关于疝气中心的定义有很多,但其目标都是通过统一临床实践来改善医疗服务。我们对疝气中心的定义进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,并将疝气中心与非专科中心进行了比较:系统检索了Cochrane Central、Scopus、Scielo和PubMed上关于疝气中心定义或疝气中心与非专科中心比较的研究。评估的结果包括复发、手术部位事件、住院时间(LOS)和手术时间。我们对疝气类型进行了分组分析。统计分析使用 R Studio 进行:我们筛选了 3260 项研究,并对 88 项研究进行了全面审查。共纳入 13 项研究。其中 5 项研究对疝气中心进行了定义,8 项研究对疝气中心和非专业中心进行了比较,共纳入 141,366 名患者。一般来说,这些定义在决策和教育要求方面相似,但在结构和认证步骤方面有所不同。我们发现,疝气中心的腹股沟疝(1.08% 对 5.11%;RR 0.21;95% CI 0.19 对 0.23;P < 0.001)和腹股沟疝(3.2% 对 8.9%;RR 0.425;95% CI 0.28 对 0.64;P < 0.001)复发率较低。疝气中心的腹侧(4.3% vs. 11.9%;RR 0.435;95% CI 0.21 to 0.90;P = 0.026)和腹股沟(0.1% vs. 0.52%;RR 0.15;95% CI 0.02 to 0.99;P = 0.49)修复手术的手术部位感染率也较低:我们的系统综述和荟萃分析支持疝气中心的建立能改善术后效果数据。系统综述注册:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024522263,PROSPERO CRD42024522263。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信