Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Importance of recurrence rating, morphology, hernial gap size, and risk factors in ventral and incisional hernia classification

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is limited evidence on the natural course of ventral and incisional hernias and the results of hernia repair, what might partially be explained by the lack of an accepted classification system. The aim of the present study is to investigate the association of the criteria included in the Wuerzburg classification system of ventral and incisional hernias with postoperative complications and long-term recurrence.

Methods

In a retrospective cohort study, the data on 330 consecutive patients who underwent surgery to repair ventral and incisional hernias were analyzed. The following four classification criteria were applied: (a) recurrence rating (ventral, incisional or incisional recurrent); (b) morphology (location); (c) size of the hernial gap; and (d) risk factors. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a recurrence during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were incidence of postoperative complications. Independent association between classification criteria, type of surgical procedures and postoperative complications was calculated by multivariate logistic regression analysis and between classification criteria, type of surgical procedures and risk of long-term recurrence by Cox regression analysis.

Results

Follow-up lasted a mean 47.7 ± 23.53 months (median 45 months) or 3.9 ± 1.96 years. The criterion “recurrence rating” was found as predictive factor for postoperative complications in the multivariate analysis (OR 2.04; 95 % CI 1.09–3.84; incisional vs. ventral hernia). The criterion “morphology” had influence neither on the incidence of the critical event “recurrence during follow-up” nor on the incidence of postoperative complications. Hernial gap “width” predicted postoperative complications in the multivariate analysis (OR 1.98; 95 % CI 1.19–3.29; ≤5 vs. >5 cm). Length of the hernial gap was found to be an independent prognostic factor for the critical event “recurrence during follow-up” (HR 2.05; 95 % CI 1.25–3.37; ≤5 vs. >5 cm). The presence of 3 or more risk factors was a consistent predictor for “recurrence during follow-up” (HR 2.25; 95 % CI 1.28–9.92). Mesh repair was an independent protective factor for “recurrence during follow-up” compared to suture (HR 0.53; 95 % CI 0.32–0.86).

Conclusions

The ventral and incisional hernia classification of Dietz et al. employs a clinically proven terminology and has an open classification structure. Hernial gap size and the number of risk factors are independent predictors for “recurrence during follow-up”, whereas recurrence rating and hernial gap size correlated significantly with the incidence of postoperative complications. We propose the application of these criteria for future clinical research, as larger patient numbers will be needed to refine the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dietz UA, Spor L, Germer CT (2011) Management of mesh related infections. Chirurg 82:208–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Winkler MS, Gerharz E, Dietz UA (2008) Overview and evolving strategies of ventral hernia repair. Urologe 47:740–747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nieuwenhuizen J, Halm JA, Jeekel J et al (2007) Natural course of incisional hernia and indications for repair. Scand J Surg 96:293–296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nieuwenhuizen J, Kleinrensink GJ, Hop WC et al (2008) Indications for incisional hernia repair: an international questionnaire among hernia surgeons. Hernia 12:223–225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dietz UA, Hamelmann W, Winkler MS et al (2007) An alternative classification of incisional hernias enlisting morphology, body type and risk factors in the assessment of prognosis and tailoring of surgical technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60:383–388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Payne PR, Mendonça EA, Johnson SB et al (2007) Conceptual knowledge acquisition in biomedicine: a methodological review. Biomed Inform 40:582–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F et al (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13:407–414

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loos MJ, Houterman S, Scheltinga MR et al (2008) Evaluating postherniorrhaphy groin pain: visual analogue or verbal rating scale? Hernia 12:147–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lovis C (1998) Trends and pitfalls with nomenclatures and classifications in medicine. Int J Med Inform 52:141–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Popper K (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson & Co., London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kumar A, Yip YL, Smith B et al (2005) An ontology for carcinoma classification for clinical bioinformatics. Stud Health Technol Inform 116:635–640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Keet CM (2006) A taxonomy of types of granularity. IEEE Computer Society, Atlanta (ISBN 1-4244-0134-8). IEEE Xplore 1:106–111

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chute CG (2000) Clinical classification and terminology: some history and current observations. J Am Med Inform Assoc 7:298–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chevrel JP, Rath AM (2000) Classification of incisional hernias of the abdominal wall. Hernia 4:7–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Korenkov M, Paul A, Sauerland S et al (2001) Classification and surgical treatment of incisional hernia. Results of an experts’ meeting. Langebeck’s Arch Surg 386:65–73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S et al (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 148:544–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Losanoff JE, Basson MD, Laker S et al (2007) Subxiphoid incisional hernias after median sternotomy. Hernia 11:473–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Varnell B, Bachman S, Quick J et al (2008) Morbidity associated with laparoscopic repair of suprapubic hernias. Am J Surg 196:983–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaafarani HM, Hur K, Hirter A et al (2009) Seroma in ventral incisional herniorrhaphy: incidence, predictors and outcome. Am J Surg 198:639–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Conze J, Prescher A, Kisielinski K et al (2005) Technical consideration for subxiphoidal incisional hernia repair. Hernia 9:84–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jenkins ED, Yom VH, Melman L et al (2010) Clinical predictors of operative complexity in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a prospective study. Surg Endosc 24:1872–1877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC et al (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kurmann A, Visth E, Candinas D et al (2011) Long-term follow-up of open and laparoscopic repair of large incisional hernias. World J Surg 35:297–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kingsnorth A (2006) The management of incisional hernia. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 88:252–260

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Höer J, Lawong G, Klinge U et al (2002) Factors influencing the development of incisional hernia. A retrospective study of 2,983 laparotomy patients over a period of 10 years. Chirurg 73:474–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Klinge U, Si ZY, Zheng H et al (2001) Collagen I/III and matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) 1 and 13 in the fascia of patients with incisional hernias. J Invest Surg 14:47–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sørensen LT, Hemmingsen UB, Kirkeby LT et al (2005) Smoking is a risk factor for incisional hernia. Arch Surg 140:119–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Veljkovic R, Protic M, Gluhovic A et al (2010) Prospective clinical trial of factors predicting the early development of incisional hernia after midline laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 210:210–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Poelman MM, Schellekens JF, Langenhorst BL et al (2010) Health-related quality of life in patients treated for incisional hernia with an onlay technique. Hernia 14:237–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Klinge U (2008) Mesh for hernia repair. Br J Surg 95:539–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Muysoms FE, Campanelli G, Champault CG et al (2012) EuraHS: the development of an international online platform for registration and outcome measurement of ventral abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia 16:239–250

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital of Wuerzburg, Oberduerrbacher Strasse 6, 97080, Wuerzburg, Germany

    U. A. Dietz, A. Fleischhacker, A. Wiegering, C. Isbert, Ch. Jurowich & C.-T. Germer

  2. Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    M. S. Winkler

  3. Department of Surgery, Triemli Hospital, 8063, Zurich, Switzerland

    R. W. Härtel

  4. Institute of Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, University of Würzburg, Petrinistrasse 33a, 97080, Wuerzburg, Germany

    P. Heuschmann

Authors
  1. U. A. Dietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. S. Winkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. W. Härtel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Fleischhacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Wiegering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Isbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ch. Jurowich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Heuschmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. C.-T. Germer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. A. Dietz.

Additional information

U.A. Dietz and M.S. Winkler have contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dietz, U.A., Winkler, M.S., Härtel, R.W. et al. Importance of recurrence rating, morphology, hernial gap size, and risk factors in ventral and incisional hernia classification. Hernia 18, 19–30 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0999-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0999-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation