Incidence of tissue-based inguinal hernia repair in Belgium: a web-based national survey.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Stijn Van Hoef, Cedric Welvaert, Mathias Allaeys, Frederik Berrevoet
{"title":"Incidence of tissue-based inguinal hernia repair in Belgium: a web-based national survey.","authors":"Stijn Van Hoef, Cedric Welvaert, Mathias Allaeys, Frederik Berrevoet","doi":"10.1080/00015458.2026.2689120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide. Several different methods for repair exist, where the preferred surgical procedure for a non-complicated unilateral inguinal hernia is still up for debate. Originally described as a tissue repair, the introduction of prostheses have led many surgeons to move away from this type of repairs. However, recently updated guidelines still recommend non-mesh treatment, in a subgroup of patients, with a preference for the Shouldice technique. Therefore, we set out to map the incidence and knowledge about tissue-based repair of a primary inguinal hernia in Belgium.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We designed a voluntary, open web-based survey for both surgeons and trainees asking about their knowledge, experience and indication for tissue-based suture repair, using a Google-forms document. The survey included level of experience and surgical preference, practice of tissue-based inguinal repair, indications for tissue-based repair, and technique and knowledge about tissue-based repair. Data was collected between 1st of December 2023 and 31st of January 2024 and analyzed using Microsoft Excel (version 16.77.01).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 122 respondents filled out the questionnaire, 47 trainees and 75 surgeons, of which 4 were discarded due to inaccurate data. Only 15 out of 71 surgical respondents still performed a non-mesh based repair in an elective setting, where the Shouldice repair was the preferred technique (<i>n</i> = 12, 80%). Knowledge about tissue-based mesh was rated mainly moderate (43.7%) and a non-mesh based repair was still considered an option when faced with fecal contamination (54.9%). Upon patient's request, 67.7% respondents would convince patients of mesh superiority. Among surgical trainees eighteen respondents (38.3%) had never seen a tissue based repair before and 36.1% respondents said tissue-based repair was not taught in their current or previous hospital(s). Most surgical trainees (48.9%) had basic knowledge and know a single technique. Considering indications for primary tissue repair, 57.4% mentioned a contaminated field as a valid indication. Comparable to the surgeon's response, 66% of surgical trainees would convince the patient of mesh superiority when asked for a pure tissue-based repair.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our survey confirms the declining rate of tissue based repairs, with only 7% of surgical respondents performing sufficient procedures to allow for equivocal result compared to mesh-based repairs. Centralizing these procedures into specific hernia centers might allow for an increased case-load and dedicated training pathways giving trainees and future surgeons proper training.</p>","PeriodicalId":6935,"journal":{"name":"Acta Chirurgica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Chirurgica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2026.2689120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide. Several different methods for repair exist, where the preferred surgical procedure for a non-complicated unilateral inguinal hernia is still up for debate. Originally described as a tissue repair, the introduction of prostheses have led many surgeons to move away from this type of repairs. However, recently updated guidelines still recommend non-mesh treatment, in a subgroup of patients, with a preference for the Shouldice technique. Therefore, we set out to map the incidence and knowledge about tissue-based repair of a primary inguinal hernia in Belgium.

Methods: We designed a voluntary, open web-based survey for both surgeons and trainees asking about their knowledge, experience and indication for tissue-based suture repair, using a Google-forms document. The survey included level of experience and surgical preference, practice of tissue-based inguinal repair, indications for tissue-based repair, and technique and knowledge about tissue-based repair. Data was collected between 1st of December 2023 and 31st of January 2024 and analyzed using Microsoft Excel (version 16.77.01).

Results: A total of 122 respondents filled out the questionnaire, 47 trainees and 75 surgeons, of which 4 were discarded due to inaccurate data. Only 15 out of 71 surgical respondents still performed a non-mesh based repair in an elective setting, where the Shouldice repair was the preferred technique (n = 12, 80%). Knowledge about tissue-based mesh was rated mainly moderate (43.7%) and a non-mesh based repair was still considered an option when faced with fecal contamination (54.9%). Upon patient's request, 67.7% respondents would convince patients of mesh superiority. Among surgical trainees eighteen respondents (38.3%) had never seen a tissue based repair before and 36.1% respondents said tissue-based repair was not taught in their current or previous hospital(s). Most surgical trainees (48.9%) had basic knowledge and know a single technique. Considering indications for primary tissue repair, 57.4% mentioned a contaminated field as a valid indication. Comparable to the surgeon's response, 66% of surgical trainees would convince the patient of mesh superiority when asked for a pure tissue-based repair.

Conclusion: Our survey confirms the declining rate of tissue based repairs, with only 7% of surgical respondents performing sufficient procedures to allow for equivocal result compared to mesh-based repairs. Centralizing these procedures into specific hernia centers might allow for an increased case-load and dedicated training pathways giving trainees and future surgeons proper training.

比利时组织型腹股沟疝修补的发生率:一项基于网络的全国性调查。
背景:腹股沟疝修补术是世界范围内最常用的手术之一。存在几种不同的修复方法,其中非复杂性单侧腹股沟疝的首选手术方法仍存在争议。最初被描述为组织修复,假体的引入导致许多外科医生远离这种类型的修复。然而,最近更新的指南仍然推荐非补片治疗,在一个亚组患者中,首选Shouldice技术。因此,我们着手绘制比利时原发性腹股沟疝组织修复的发生率和知识。方法:我们设计了一个自愿的、开放的基于网络的调查,对外科医生和学员询问他们的知识、经验和指征,以组织为基础的缝合修复,使用谷歌表格文档。调查内容包括经验水平和手术偏好、组织基础修复的实践、组织基础修复的指征、组织基础修复的技术和知识。数据收集于2023年12月1日至2024年1月31日之间,并使用Microsoft Excel(版本16.77.01)进行分析。结果:共122人填写问卷,学员47人,外科医生75人,其中4人因数据不准确而被丢弃。71位手术应答者中只有15位仍然在选择性的情况下进行了非补片修复。在美国,肩关节修复术是首选技术(n = 12.80%)。对组织基补片的了解程度一般(43.7%),当面临粪便污染时,非补片修复仍被认为是一种选择(54.9%)。应患者要求,67.7%的受访者会说服患者网状物的优越性。在外科培训生中,18名受访者(38.3%)从未见过组织修复,36.1%的受访者表示,他们目前或以前的医院没有教授组织修复。大多数外科培训生(48.9%)具有基本知识和单一技术。考虑到初级组织修复的适应症,57.4%的人认为污染场是有效的适应症。与外科医生的反应相比,66%的外科实习生在被要求进行纯组织修复时,会说服患者网状物的优越性。结论:我们的调查证实了组织基修复率的下降,与网格基修复相比,只有7%的手术应答者执行了足够的程序来允许模棱两可的结果。将这些手术集中到特定的疝气中心可能会增加病例负荷和专门的培训途径,为受训人员和未来的外科医生提供适当的培训。
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
Acta Chirurgica Belgica
Acta Chirurgica Belgica 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Chirurgica Belgica (ACB) is the official journal of the Royal Belgian Society for Surgery (RBSS) and its affiliated societies. It publishes Editorials, Review papers, Original Research, and Technique related manuscripts in the broad field of Clinical Surgery.
×
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
小红书