Minimally invasive umbilical hernia repair is safe for patients with liver dysfunction: A propensity-score-matched analysis of approach and outcomes using ACS-NSQIP

Background: Umbilical hernias are highly prevalent in patients with liver dysfunction, ascites, and cirrhosis. This patient population carries significant perioperative risk and poses significant challenges because of their comorbidities. Literature suggests that elective repair of umbilical hernias can lead to better outcomes by reducing the risk of ascitic leak and compromised bowel. Medical optimization followed by open repair has been the standard approach; however, little is known about whether a laparoscopic approach may be equivalent or superior. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2015 to 2021 for umbilical hernia repairs in patients with liver dysfunction, as defined per the aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index >= 1. We compare operative outcomes for open and laparoscopic repair, adjusting for confounders using propensity score matching and stratifying by case acuity. Results: We identified 1,983 patients with liver dysfunction who underwent umbilical hernia repair. Most patients (86%) were operated via an open approach rather than laparoscopy. Operative outcomes between the laparoscopy and open group were comparable regarding mortality and serious complications. Notably, length of stay and need for blood transfusion intraoperatively or postoperatively were reduced in the laparoscopy group (P < .001). These findings remained significant after subgroup analysis with propensity matching stratified by elective and emergency case types. Conclusion: Minimally invasive umbilical hernia repair in liver dysfunction is as safe and, in some metrics, superior to open technique. We found no difference in mortality although hospital stays and the need for blood transfusions were lower in the laparoscopy groups. Prospective randomized trials are needed to validate these findings further. (c) 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.