Evidence Hub

Cumulative incidence of midline incisional hernia and its surgical treatment after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer: A nation-wide population-based study

Liedberg F, Hagberg O, Aljabery F, Gårdmark T, Jahnson S, Jerlström T, Montgomery A, Sherif A et al.

PloS one, 2021

5,646 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To study the cumulative incidence and surgical treatment of midline incisional hernia (MIH) after cystectomy for bladder cancer.

METHODS: In the nationwide Bladder Cancer Data Base Sweden (BladderBaSe), cystectomy was performed in 5646 individuals. Cumulative incidence MIH and surgery for MIH were investigated in relation to age, gender, comorbidity, previous laparotomy and/or inguinal hernia repair, operative technique, primary/secondary cystectomy, postoperative wound dehiscence, year of surgery, and period-specific mean annual hospital cystectomy volume (PSMAV).

RESULTS: Three years after cystectomy the cumulative incidence of MIH and surgery for MIH was 8% and 4%, respectively. The cumulative incidence MIH was 12%, 9% and 7% in patients having urinary diversion with continent cutaneous pouch, orthotopic neobladder and ileal conduit. Patients with postoperative wound dehiscence had a higher three-year cumulative incidence MIH (20%) compared to 8% without. The corresponding cumulative incidence surgery for MIH three years after cystectomy was 9%, 6%, and 4% for continent cutaneous, neobladder, and conduit diversion, respectively, and 11% for individuals with postoperative wound dehiscence (vs 4% without). Using multivariable Cox regression, secondary cystectomy (HR 1.3 (1.0-1.7)), continent cutaneous diversion (HR 1.9 (1.1-2.4)), robot-assisted cystectomy (HR 1.8 (1-3.2)), wound dehiscence (HR 3.0 (2.0-4.7)), cystectomy in hospitals with PSMAV…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 5,646 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free