Closing the gap between the laparoscopic and open approaches to abdominal wall hernia repair: a trend and outcomes analysis of the ACS-NSQIP database

To assess trends in utilization and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open abdominal wall hernia repair. Using the ACS-NSQIP database between 2009 and 2012, patients were identified as having an ICD-9 diagnosis of an umbilical, ventral, or incisional hernia as well as a CPT code for a laparoscopic or open abdominal wall hernia repair. A coarsened exact matching procedure was utilized to create a matched cohort to mitigate selection bias. Thirty-day outcomes analysis was done for the aggregate and matched cohorts. Subcategory analysis was performed for inpatient/outpatient status, strangulated/incarcerated hernias, initial/recurrent repairs, and hernia type (umbilical, ventral, incisional). Chi-square analysis was performed to determine the statistical significance of each comparison. In total, 112,074 qualifying patients were identified, 86,566 (77.24 %) open and 25,508 (22.76 %) laparoscopic. Patients undergoing laparoscopic repair were more likely to have preexisting comorbidities, but less likely to experience any postoperative morbidity (11.74 vs. 7.25 %, P < 0.0001), serious morbidity (4.55 vs. 3.02 %, P < 0.0001), or mortality (0.36 vs. 0.24 %, P = 0.0030). Creation of the matched cohort produced 17,394 patients in both the laparoscopic and open groups and resulted in a loss of advantage for the laparoscopic approach in terms of morbidity associated with umbilical hernia repairs (P = 0.0082 vs. P = 0.3172). Patients undergoing laparoscopic repair were still less likely to experience any postoperative (9.57 vs. 4.92 %, P < 0.0001) or serious morbidity (3.37 vs. 1.70 %, P < 0.0001). Hospital length of stay in the matched cohort supported initial primary repairs done by an open approach. The laparoscopic approach is used in a minority of abdominal wall hernia repairs, though utilization increased by 40 % from 2009 to 2012. The laparoscopic approach continues to be safer on many fronts, but not all, and is arguably not better for umbilical or primary hernia repairs on the basis of overall morbidity and length of stay.