Evidence Hub

Primary Fascial Closure During Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair Improves Patient Quality of Life: A Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (NCT02363790)

K. Bernardi, O. Olavarria, J. Holihan, L. Kao, Tien C. Ko, J. Roth, S. Tsuda, K. Vaziri et al.

Annals of Surgery, 2020

129 participants · 22 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have reported conflicting results with primary fascial closure (PFC) versus bridged repair during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine whether when evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), PFC compared to bridged repair would improve patient quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

In this blinded, multicenter RCT, patients scheduled for elective LVHR (hernia defects 3 to 10 cm on computed tomography scan) were randomized to PFC versus bridged repair. Primary outcome was change in QoL after LVHR using a validated, hernia-specific survey (1 = poor QoL and 100 = perfect QoL) that measures pain, function, cosmesis, and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were postoperative surgical site occurrences (including hematoma, seroma, surgical site infection, and wound dehiscence), abdominal eventration, and hernia recurrence. The trial was powered to detect a difference in change in QoL of 7 points between the study groups. Outcomes were compared with Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients underwent LVHR and 107 (83%) completed follow-up at 2 years. Patients from both groups were similar at baseline. On median follow-up of 24 months (range: 9-42), patients treated with LVHR-PFC had on average a 12-point higher improvement in QoL compared to bridged repair (improvement in QoL, 41.3 ± 31.5 vs 29.7 ± 28.7, P value = 0.047). There were no differences in surgical site occurrence,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 129 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