Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0246703. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246703

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

Fredrik Liedberg 1,2,*, Oskar Hagberg 2,3, Firas Aljabery 4, Truls Gårdmark 5, Staffan Jahnson 4, Tomas Jerlström 6, Agneta Montgomery 7, Amir Sherif 8, Viveka Ströck 9, Christel Häggström 10,11, Lars Holmberg 11,12
Editor: Emre Bozkurt13
PMCID: PMC7861544  PMID: 33539475

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 10–25 (HR 1.4 (1.0–1.9)), as well as cystectomy during later years (HRs 2.5–3.1) were all independently associated with increased risk of MIH.

Conclusions

The cumulative incidence of MIH was 8% three years postoperatively, and increase over time. Avoiding postoperative wound dehiscence after midline closure is important to decrease the risk of MIH.

Introduction

The occurrence of midline incisional hernia (MIH) after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer or the proportion of these patients that require surgical repair are scarcely reported in the literature [1]. Published studies have often been hampered by either reporting simultaneously on different long-term complications after cystectomy or by a single-center design [2, 3]. Furthermore, the number of patients included in previous reports is limited. Thus far, only one population-based study has studied MIH after cystectomy [4]. This study considered only MIH complications requiring in-hospital care (but not necessarily surgery) as endpoint [4]. A total of one or several events were reported in 2.6% of the patients. In one United States tertial referral centre the risk of having a MIH diagnosis at end of follow-up was 19% [1].

Our objective was to conduct a population-based nationwide study including all bladder cancer patients subjected to radical cystectomy reported to BladderBaSe 1997 through 2014 to estimate the incidence of MIH development and the proportion of such hernias that led to surgical treatment. Furthermore, we aimed to identify risk factors for developing a MIH and having surgery for MIH.

Material and methods

Study design and participants

The principles of data extraction applied and linkages of the current study are described in detail in the BladderBaSe cohort profile [5]. All 5646 individuals diagnosed with bladder cancer in Sweden during the period 1997−2014 and subsequently treated with radical cystectomy, either at diagnosis as primary treatment (n = 4108) or later at progression as secondary treatment (n = 1538) were included.

Patients with ICD-10 codes for MIH (K43.9/K43.0/K43.1/K43.0A/K.43.0B/K43.1A/K43.1B/K.43.2/K43.2A/K.43.2) were identified from the hospital inpatient and outpatient registries, thus without knowing if a clinical examination and/or a radiological investigation was used to diagnose MIHs. Patients who had surgery for MIH after the date of cystectomy was ascertained from the inpatient registry by using the following ICD-10 codes: JAD10/JAD11/JAD13/JAD20/JAD23/JAD30/JAD33/JAD40/JAD41/JAD43/JAD47/JAD50/JAD51/JAD60/JAD61/JAD63/JAD67/JAD70/JAD71/JAD73/JAD80/JAD81/JAD84/JAD87. However, no information on the indications that were applied for performing surgery for MIH or surgical techniques used were available.

We investigated if the diagnosis and/or surgery for a MIH were associated with age, gender, comorbidity, previous laparotomy, previous inguinal or incisional hernia repair before cystectomy, cystectomy as primary treatment at diagnosis or as secondary treatment at disease progression, type of urinary diversion (continent cutaneous pouch, orthotopic neobladder, or ileal conduit) surgical technique (open or robotic-assisted cystectomy), postoperative occurrence of wound dehiscence (diagnosis and/or surgery) within 60 days of surgery (a timepoint after which wound dehiscence not likely is related to the cystectomy) and hospital cystectomy volume. All these variables were ascertained either from the SNRUBC or from the inpatient or outpatient registries. Comorbidity was measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and was calculated based on a list of diseases using a specific weight assigned to each disease category according to data from the national inpatient and outpatient register [5]. Information about whether early recovery after surgery (ERAS) measures were applied before, during and after radical cystectomy was lacking.

To investigate the association between hospital volume and MIH diagnosis and/or surgery, the Period-Specific Mean Annual Volume (PSMAV) was calculated [6]. PSMAV was defined as the cystectomy volume per year for 3 years preceding radical cystectomy based on all patients subjected to such surgery during the study period. PSMAV was stratified in tertiles adjusted to the prevailing literature on volume-outcome, i.e.: [0−10), [10−25) and [25−86] annual cystectomies [6].

The individual patient’s date for radical cystectomy was used as the starting point for follow-up. Date of death, emigration, or 31 December 2014, was regarded as the end of follow-up, whatever happened first.

All data used were fully anonymized during the study that was approved by the Research Ethics Board of Uppsala University, Sweden (File no. 2015/277).

Statistical analysis

The cumulative incidence of MIH and surgery for MIH was calculated using standard Kaplan-Meier technique, with date of cystectomy as starting point and censoring for loss to follow-up or death. The chi square test or Fischer’s exact test was used to compare proportions MIH for categorical variables. The t-test was applied to compare continuous variables between groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to investigate the associations between preoperative risk factors for MIH and surgery during follow-up. Patients were censored at lost to follow-up and death, just as when the cumulative incidence was computed. Analyses were performed with the R statistical package version 3.4.2. ((R Core Team ☯2017]). (R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria URL https://www.r-project.org).

Results

Median age at cystectomy and urinary tract reconstruction among the 5646 individuals operated in Sweden between 1997 and 2014 was 69 (inter quartile range (IQR) 63–75) years. A total of 1350 (24%) were females. Median follow-up time was 2.3 (IQR 0.9–5.8) years. Patient characteristics including number of patients with potential pre- and/or perioperative risk factors for midline incisional hernia (MIH) formation are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Number of patients with and without midline incisional hernia diagnosis and surgery.

Patient characteristics Numbers with midline incisional hernia diagnosis Numbers with midline incisional hernia surgery Numbers without midline incisional hernia diagnosis or surgery Total numbers
(n = 379) (n = 205) (n = 5267) (n = 5646)
Gender:
Male 281 157 4010 4291 (76%)
Female 98 48 1257 1355 (24%)
Median age at cystectomy (Interquartile Range) years: 67 (62–73) 66 (60–71) 70 (63–75)* 69 (63–75)
CCI:
0 275 158 3731 4006 (71%)
1 54 24 707 761 (13%)
2 35 16 521 556 (10%)
3 6 5 139 145 (3%)
>3 4 1 113 117 (2%)
missing 5 1 56 61 (1%)
Previous laparotomy:
No 377 204 5213 5590 (99%)
Yes 2 1 54 56 (1%)
Previous inguinal hernia repair:
No 373 202 5142 5515 (98%)
Yes 6 3 125 131 (2%)
Incisional hernia before cystectomy:
No 376 204 5237 5613 (99%)
Yes 3 1 30 33 (1%)
Primary cystectomy 251 132 3857 4108 (73%)
Secondary cystectomy 128 73 1410 1538 (27%)
Urinary diversion:
Ileal conduit 250 111 4097 4347 (77%)
Orthtopic neobladder 72 53 798 870 (15%)
Continent cutaneous pouch 57 41 372 429 (8%)
Robot-assisted cystectomy:
No 362 194 4938 5300 (94%)
Yes 17 11 329 346 (6%)
Wound dehiscence within 60 days after cystectomy:
No 353 189 5112 5465 (97%)
Yes 26 16 155 181 (3%)
PSMAV:
[0–10), 87 46 1497 1584 (28%)
[10–25), 170 96 2036 2206 (39%)
[25−86], 117 60 1691 1808 (32%)
missing 5 3 43 48 (1%)

PSMAV = Period-specific mean annual hospital volume, CCI = Charlson comorbidity index. (*p<0.001 (t-test)).

A majority of patients were operated with open cystectomy (94%) and 346 (6%) were subjected to robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. The proportion of patients receiving robotic-assisted surgery increased during the last ten years in the study from 0% to 29% (122/425) during 2014.

A total of 379 patients were diagnosed with a MIH after cystectomy and surgery was performed in 205 individuals. The cumulative incidence of patients diagnosed with a MIH a three, five and ten years was 8%, 10%, and 14%, respectively, and the corresponding cumulative incidences of having surgery for MIH was 4%, 6%, and 7% (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Cumulative incidence with 95% confidence interval at selected time points.

Fig 1

The cumulative proportion of patients diagnosed with and operated for midline incisional hernia, respectively. Grey bars represent 95% CI at three, five and ten years.

Fig 2 shows the cumulative incidence of MIH diagnosed and repaired at three years, as stratified by three-year time-periods. Patients with cystectomy during the last three-year strata 2012–2014 were excluded in Fig 2, as they did not have three years follow-up time. The cumulative incidence MIH at three years follow-up increased during the study period, however the cumulative incidence of patients subjected to surgery for MIH at three years follow-up decreased.

Fig 2. Three year cumulative incidence with a 95% confidence interval.

Fig 2

Three year cumulative incidence midline incisional hernia diagnosis with 95% confidence intervals (black bars) and midline incisional hernia surgery (red bars), stratified by three-year time-periods. Patients with cystectomy during the last three-year strata 2012–2014 were excluded, as they did not have three years follow-up time.

Continent urinary diversion with continent cutaneous pouch or orthotopic neobladder were at three years postoperatively associated with larger proportions of MIH, 12% and 9% respectively, compared to urinary diversion with an ileal conduit (7% (p<0.03)). The corresponding proportions for open and robotic assisted cystectomy were 8% and 14%, respectively (p = 0.06). A larger proportion of patients suffering from wound dehiscence after cystectomy were diagnosed with MIH at three years after cystectomy (20%) compared to 8% without postoperative wound dehiscence (p<0.001). For patients operated in hospitals with a period-specific mean annual volume (PSMAV) in the upper two tertiles (10–25 and 25–86 annual cystectomies, respectively), a higher proportion of patients were diagnosed with MIH at three years (9%) compared to 6% in the lower PSMAV tertile (p = 0.04). Other potential risk-factors for MIH development are displayed in Table 1, however the cumulative incidence of MIH diagnosis were similar between groups.

Patients subjected to surgery for MIH were younger at cystectomy than those not being diagnosed or operated for midline incisional hernia (Table 1). Surgery for MIH was more frequently performed in patients receiving continent cutaneous diversion (9%) and orthotopic neobladder (6%) three years after cystectomy, compared to those who received an ileal conduit (4% (p<0.001)), as for individuals with postoperative wound dehiscence (11% vs 4% without (p = 0.001)). At five years after cystectomy the proportion of patients operated with robotic assisted cystectomy subjected to MIH repair was higher (17%) compared to individuals operated with open cystectomy (6% (p = 0.005)). The other investigated potential determinants for MIH surgery displayed at similar proportions of such surgery irrespectively of each risk-factor (Table 1).

When pre- and perioperative risk-factors for MIH diagnosis was investigated in a Cox regression model, secondary cystectomy at disease progression after initially having an organ-sparing treatment strategy as primary treatment strategy (as opposed to primary cystectomy at bladder cancer diagnosis), continent cutaneous diversion, robotic assisted cystectomy, postoperative wound dehiscence, cystectomy during later years, and in hospitals with median cystectomy volume (PSMAV 10–25) were all independently associated with an increased risk in a multivariate analysis with almost similar univariate risks (Table 2).

Table 2. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analysis of known risk factors for subsequent incisional hernia diagnosis.

Numbers HR (univariate) p-value HR (multivariate) p-value
Gender (Male vs Female) 4291 1 1
1355 1.03 (0.79–1.35) 0.8 1.05 (0.79–1.39) 0.7
Age at cystectomy (Per unit) 5646 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 0.2 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.4
CCI
0 4006 1 1
1 761 1.21 (0.87–1.67) 0.3 1.21 (0.87–1.70) 0.3
2 556 1.09 (0.73–1.61) 0.7 1.17 (0.78–1.74) 0.4
3 145 0.63 (0.23–1.68) 0.4 0.67 (0.25–1.80) 0.4
>3 117 0.90 (0.33–2.41) 0.8 0.95 (0.35–2.57) 0.9
missing 61
Previous laparotomy (Yes vs No) 56 0.42 (0.06–3.00) 0.4 0.38 (0.05–2.77) 0.3
5590 1 1
Previous inguinal hernia repair (Yes vs No) 131 0.86 (0.48–1.53) 0.6 0.88 (0.49–1.59) 0.7
5515 1 1
Incisional hernia before cystectomy (Yes vs No) 35 2.54 (0.82–7.93) 0.1 2.77 (0.87–8.70) 0.09
5613 1 1
Primary vs secondary cystectomy 4108 1 1
1538 1.40 (1.11–1.78) 0.005 1.30 (1.02–1.67) 0.04
Urinary diversion
Ileal conduit 4347 1 1
Orthtopic neobladder 870 1.19 (0.89–1.59) 0.3 1.14 (0.81–1.60) 0.4
Continent cutaneous pouch 429 1.58 (1.12–2.24) 0.01 1.92 (1.13–2.38) <0.001
Robot-assisted cystectomy (Yes vs No) 346 1.41 (0.86–2.30) 0.2 1.81 (1.04–3.15) 0.04
5300 1 1
Wound dehiscence within 60 days after cystectomy (Yes vs No) 181 2.70 (1.76–4.13) <0.001 3.04 (1.96–4.71) <0.001
5465 1 1
Year of cystectomy in three-year strata
1997–1999 468 1 1
2000–2002 719 1.61 (0.85–3.06) 0.1 1.61 (0.84–3.06) 0.2
2003–2005 908 2.38 (1.30–4.34) 0.005 2.47 (1.34–4.55) 0.004
2006–2008 1048 2.72 (1.51–4.90) <0.001 3.08 (1.67–5.69) <0.001
2009–2011 1234 2.20 (1.22–3.96) 0.009 2.65 (1.43–4.92) 0.002
2012–2014 1269 1.64 (0.86–3.10) 0.1 1.71 (0.85–3.45) 0.1
PSMAV
[0–10), 1584 1 1
[10–25), 2206 1.44 (1.07–1.95) 0.02 1.38 (1.01–1.87) 0.04
[25−86], 1808 1.44 (1.05–1.97) 0.02 1.15 (0.80–1.64) 0.4
missing 48

PSMAV = Period-specific mean annual hospital volume, CCI = Charlson comorbidity index.

Increased risk of MIH surgery was in a similar Cox-regression model associated with secondary cystectomy, continent cutaneous diversion, robotic assisted cystectomy, wound dehiscence and cystectomy during later years, both in univariate and multivariate analysis (Table 3). Wound dehiscence was associated with the most pronounced increased risk (HR 3.3 (2.0–5.4)), followed by a two-fold increased risk after continent cutaneous diversion and robotic assisted cystectomy (HR 2.1 (1.3–3.3) and HR 2.2 (1.2–3.9)), respectively.

Table 3. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analysis of known risk factors for subsequent incisional hernia surgery.

Numbers HR (univariate) p-value HR (multivariate) p-value
Gender (Male vs Female) 4291 1 1
1355 1.0 (0.72–1.38) 1.0 1.01 (0.72–1.43) 0.9
Age at cystectomy (Per unit) 5646 0.99 (0.97–1.00) 0.1 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.4
CCI
0 4006 1 1
1 761 0.99 (0.65–1.51) 1.0 1.10 (0.72–1.67) 0.7
2 556 1.10 (0.69–1.75) 0.7 1.21 (0.75–1.95) 0.4
3 145 0.91 (0.34–2.44) 0.8 1.01 (0.37–2.75) 1.0
>3 117 1.30 (0.48–3.51) 0.6 1.42 (0.52–3.84) 0.5
missing 61
Previous
laparotomy (Yes vs No) 56 0.64 (0.09–4.54) 0.7 0.72 (0.10–5.17) 0.7
5590 1 1
Previous inguinal hernia repair (Yes vs No) 131 0.82 (0.40–1.65) 0.6 0.85 (0.41–1.74) 0.7
5515 1 1
Primary vs secondary cystectomy 4108 1 0.004 1 0.03
1538 1.52 (1.14–2.01) 1.39 (1.04–1.86)
Urinary diversion
Ileal conduit 4347 1 1
Orthotopic neobladder 870 1.34 (0.96–1.88) 0.09 1.28 (0.86–1.90) 0.2
Continent cutaneous pouch 429 1.74 (1.17–2.61) 0.007 2.09 (1.34–3.26) 0.001
Robot-assisted cystectomy (Yes vs No) 346 2.10 (1.26–3.51) 0.004 2.16 (1.19–3.93) 0.01
5300 1 1
Wound dehiscence within 60 days after cystectomy (Yes vs No) 181 2.93 (1.81–4.76) <0.001 3.28 (1.99–5.41) <0.001
5465 1 1
Year of cystectomy in three-year strata
1997–1999 468 1 1
2000–2002 719 1.41 (0.72–2.79) 0.3 1.41 (0.71–2.79) 0.3
2003–2005 908 1.85 (0.97–3.51) 0.06 1.92 (0.99–3.69) 0.05
2006–2008 1048 1.68 (0.89–3.18) 0.1 1.98 (1.01–3.88) 0.05
2009–2011 1234 1.37 (0.73–2.60) 0.3 1.69 (0.86–3.34) 0.1
2012–2014 1269 1.98 (1.02–3.83) 0.04 2.01 (0.96–4.23) 0.06
PSMAV
[0–10), 1584 1 1
[10–25), 2206 1.44 (1.01–2.06) 0.05 1.31 (0.91–1.90) 0.1
[25−86], 1808 1.44 (1.00–2.12) 0.05 1.11 (0.71–1.73) 0.6
missing 48

Previous incisional hernia was not adjusted for as no patient was operated after cystectomy with recurrent incisional hernia. PSMAV = Period-specific mean annual hospital volume, CCI = Charlson comorbidity index.

In a subgroup analysis in patients operated with primary cystectomy where information on whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered prior to surgery, the hazard ratio for MIH diagnosis after such preoperative treatment was 1.3 (0.8–2.1). Furthermore, among the 189 patients operated for postoperative ileus within 60 days of surgery the risk of MIH diagnosis was similar compared to those who did not (hazard ratio 1.1 (0.6–2.0)).

Discussion

In this large population-based and nationwide cohort operated with radical cystectomy cumulative incidence midline incisional hernia (MIH) was eight percent and four percent were subjected to MIH repair at three years after cystectomy. As anticipated, MIHs were more frequently encountered in individuals who suffered from wound dehiscence after cystectomy, but also in patients receiving continent reconstructions compared to an ileal conduit. Patients operated with robotic assisted cystectomy were more frequently subjected to MIH repair at three and five years after cystectomy (8% and 17%, respectively), compared to patients operated with open cystectomy (four and six percent).

When adjusting for other pre- and perioperative risk-factors for MIH diagnosis, secondary cystectomy, continent cutaneous pouch diversion, robot-assisted cystectomy, wound dehiscence after cystectomy, cystectomy during the later parts of the study and cystectomy in hospitals with period-specific mean annual volume (PSMAV) in the middle tertile (10–25 annual cystectomies) were independently associated with an increased risk of MIH development. Information on surgeon volume was not available, and thus it was not possible to further disentangle the separate components (surgeon and hospital volume, respectively) of the association between PSMAV and risk of MIH diagnosis. Urinary diversion with an orthotopic neobladder has previously been reported to increase the risk of MIH [1], however orthotopic diversion were not associated with a decreased risk in the current study.

Our analysis shows that the cumulative incidence of MIH increases over the study period with no signs of a plateau in the curve (Fig 1). This implies that our estimates are difficult to compare to series reporting only crude proportions which do not consider censoring and a specific time horizon [1]. The continued risk over time illustrates the need for relevant time-to-event analysis of this complication after cystectomy, and that follow-up for at least three years is mandatory in any study evaluating MIH [7]. Furthermore, the reported risks of MIHs also depend on the methods of follow-up. The reported hernias in this study probably represent the great majority of clinically relevant MIH diagnosed, but when abdominal wall surgeons systematically reviewed postoperative abdominal computed tomographies in a prospective setting, MIHs were detected as frequently as in 55% of all patients [8]. Thus, the use of abdominal wall directed reviews of radiological examinations will not only increase the chance of detection, but also define a group of asymptomatic hernias. A thorough clinical examination has been suggested to be equally effective as radiological examinations for the detection of clinically relevant MIHs [9, 10].

The increased risk of MIH observed during the later studied three-year periods is difficult to explain. I.e. in the adjusted Cox model, it could not be explained by the increased proportions of patients with comorbidities. However, increased awareness of the complications over time and improved reporting may be reasons for such increased risk. Similarly, the finding that patients with MIH were younger than those without MIH in the present study is difficult to explain, but as age not were not associated with increased risk of MIH either as reported in other studies [11], probably selection mechanisms and unknown confounders contributed to this finding.

MIH as a frequent complication after continent cutaneous diversion has previously been reported, with such hernias diagnosed in eight percent of patients operated with continent cutaneous diversion ad modum Lundiana pouch in a recent single centre series [12]. In patients diverted with an orthotopic neobladder, difficulties to empty the substitute and use of excessive abdominal straining has also been associated with MIH development [3], and during the first part of the study orthotopic neobladders were constructed ad modum Goldwasser [13], also necessitating a longer midline incision as in Lundiana pouches, to mobilise the right colonic flexure compared to reconstructions using small intestine only. Furthermore, increased proportion of reoperations after a continent reconstruction related to long-term functional complications compared to an ileal conduit (29% vs 22%) [14], might also contribute and explain increased risk of MIH in these patients.

The increased risk of MIH diagnosis in patients operated in intermediate volume hospitals when adjusting for other risk-factors is probably explained by patient selection not captured in the available data. More thorough follow-up and detection and/or registration of MIH in these hospitals might contribute, especially as no increased risk of MIH surgery was noted (Table 3). The increased risk of MIH diagnosis and as well as MIH surgery associated with cystectomy performed as secondary treatment, compared to when cystectomy was performed at the timepoint of bladder cancer diagnosis (primary cystectomy), is difficult to explain. For example, only 21/1538 patients treated with secondary cystectomy received radiotherapy prior to cystectomy, thus not a likely explanation for the increased risk of MIH. However, residual confounding and selection mechanisms in individuals whom postponing radical surgery in high-risk non-muscle invasive disease until later, could be tentative differences.

The counter-intuitive finding of a higher risk of MIH diagnosis and surgery after robotic assisted cystectomy was similar to after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open surgery [15]. The explanation for why shorter incisions applied in robotic assisted surgery were associated with increased risk of MIHs is not known, however explanations could be that “unconventional” incisions may have been used for specimen retrieval resulting in suboptimal fascial closure or earlier strenuous physical activities enabled by less wound pain after robotic assisted surgery provoking development of MIHs. Whether increased intraabdominal pressure per se during robotic assisted cystectomy is associated with the development of MIH is not known. As no information on whether intracorporeal reconstruction or extracorporeal reconstruction was applied during robotic assisted cystectomy, eventual different propensities for incisional hernia development between the two reconstruction methods could not be assessed in the current study. Furthermore, the robotic assisted cystectomies in the present series include the complete learning curve in all hospitals as opposed to a recent tertiary-care referral cohort without obvious learning curve within the series where robotic assisted cystectomy was not associated with an increased risk of MIH [16]. Thus, the possibility of longer operating times related to a steeper learning curve for robotic assisted cystectomy might also contribute to the higher risk of MIH diagnosis after robotic assisted cystectomy apart from the learning curve in itself and more careful follow-up of individuals operated with a new surgical technique.

A limitation of this study is the lack of information on the technique for wound closure. For example, a monofilament suture instead of multifilament reduces the risk of MIH [17], and recent European Hernia Society (EHS) guidelines recommends slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a single layer aponeurotic closure technique with small bites and a suture to wound length ratio at least 4:1 to decrease the risk of MIH [18]. Another limitation is the relatively low number of events entailing a low statistical precision concerning analyses of potential risk factors for MIH and MIH surgery, despite that the current study to our knowledge is the largest modern population-based series. Furthermore, one limitation is the lack of information on body mass index, smoking, corticosteroid medication, and extension of the incision above the umbilicus were not known and thus not possible to adjust for [19, 20]. The lack of information on intraoperative complications, blood loss at surgery and surgical duration and details on postoperative complications such as wound site infections and persistent postoperative anemia and hypoalbuminemia (both pre- and postoperatively) are also to be considered as study limitations. Likewise, there might be a possible underreporting of patients with MIHs into the patient registry. However, it is likely that the registered abdominal wall hernias constitute the vast majority of the advanced and symptomatic hernias and that the information on MIH hernia surgery from the patient registry has a high validity, as the procedure is associated with hospital reimbursement [20]. This assumption is also supported by similar proportions as in the current study were subjected to MIH repair in a population-based chart-review study (five percent of patients were operated for parastomal or MIH after cystectomy) [14] and a tertial referral center report (seven percent) [1]. Based on the continuously rising cumulative incidence curves for both MIH diagnosis and repair in Fig 1, a longer median follow-up than the current 2.3 years will likely add new events, which also can be considered a study limitation.

Conclusions

The increased risk of MIH over time necessitates time-to-event analyses when studying this complication. Postoperative wound dehiscence was as anticipated a major risk-factor for MIH, emphasizing the importance of a technically optimal midline closure at primary surgery. The two hypothesis-generating findings that continent cutaneous diversion and robotic assisted cystectomy might be independent risk-factors for MIH, warrant prospective clinical studies.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of patient-related and are confidential. The data in in BladderBaSe is partly available in annual reports from the Swedish National Registry of Urinary Bladder Cancer (SNRUBC) and also are accessible online at https://statistik.incanet.se/urinblasecancer/. Collaborators can propose and apply for studies in the BladderBaSe using a standardised form. After approved application, the project data administrators can upload study-specific files with selected variables to a server for statistical analysis through remote access. Users of this system will be charged for software licences, data administration and for preprocessing of study files. For more information contact either the PI BladderBaSe (lars.holmberg@kcl.ac.uk) or the corresponding author (fredrik.liedberg@med.lu.se).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society (grant numbers CAN 2019/62 and CAN 2017/278), Lund Medical Faculty (ALF), Skåne University Hospital Research Funds, the Gyllenstierna Krapperup’s Foundation, Skåne County Council’s Research and Development Foundation (REGSKANE-622351), Gösta Jönsson Research Foundation, The Foundation of Urological Research (Ove and Carin Carlsson bladder cancer donation) and Hillevi Fries Research Foundation. The funding sources had no role in the study design, data analyses, interpretation or writing the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Movassaghi K, Shah SH, Cai J, Miranda G, Fernandez J, Duddalwar V et al. Incisional and Parastomal Hernia following Radical Cystectomy and Urinary Diversion: The University of Southern California Experience. J Urol. 2016;196: 777–81. 10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ali-el-Dein B, Shaaban AA, Abu-Eideh RH, el-Azab M, Ashamallah A, Ghoneim MA. Surgical complications following radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladders in women. J Urol. 2008;180: 206–10. 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hautmann RE, de Petriconi RC, Volkmer BG. 25 years of experience with 1,000 neobladders: long-term complications. J Urol. 2011;185: 2207–12. 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.van Hemelrijck M, Thorstenson A, Smith P, Adolfsson J, Akre O. Risk of in-hospital complications after radical cystectomy for urinary bladder carcinoma: population-based follow-up study of 7608 patients. BJU Int. 2013;112: 1113–20. 10.1111/bju.12239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Häggström C, Liedberg F, Hagberg O, Aljabery F, Ströck V, Hosseini A et al. Cohort profile: The Swedish National Register of Urinary Bladder Cancer (SNRUBC) and the Bladder Cancer Data Base Sweden (BladderBaSe). BMJ Open. 2017;7: e016606 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liedberg F, Hagberg O, Aljabery F, Gårdmark T, Hosseini A, Jahnson S et al. Period-specific mean annual hospital volume of radical cystectomy is associated with outcome and perioperative quality of care: a nationwide population-based study. BJU Int. 2019;124: 449–456. 10.1111/bju.14767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fink C, Bauman P, Wente MN, Knebel P, Bruckner T, Ulrich A et al. Incisional hernia rates 3 years after midline laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101: 51–4. 10.1002/bjs.9364 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Baucom RB, Beck WC, Holzman MD, Sharp KW, Nealon WH, Poulose BK. The importance of surgeon-reviewed computed tomography for incisional hernia detection: a prospective study. Am Surg. 2014;80: 720–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Björk D, Cengiz Y, Weisby L, Israelsson LA. Detecting Incisional Hernia at Clinical and Radiological Examination. Surg Technol Int. 2015;26: 128–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Seo GH, Choe EK, Park KJ, Chai YJ. Incidence of Clinically Relevant Incisional Hernia After Colon Cancer Surgery and Its Risk Factors: A Nationwide Claims Study. World J Surg. 2018;42: 1192–1199. 10.1007/s00268-017-4256-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN. The modern management of incisional hernias. BMJ. 2012; 344:e2843 10.1136/bmj.e2843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Liedberg F, Gudjonsson S, Xu A, Bendahl PO, Davidsson T, Månsson W. Long-term third-party assessment of results after continent cutaneous diversion with Lundiana pouch. BJU Int. 2017;120: 530–536. 10.1111/bju.13863 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Paananen I, Ohtonen P, Perttilä I, Jonsson O, Edlund C, Wiklund P et al. Functional results after orthotopic bladder substitution: a prospective multicentre study comparing four types of neobladder. Scand J Urol. 2014;48: 90–8. 10.3109/21681805.2013.799225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liedberg F, Holmberg E, Holmäng S, Ljungberg B, Malmström PU, Månsson W et al. Long-term follow-up after radical cystectomy with emphasis on complications and reoperations: a Swedish population-based survey. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2012;46: 14–8. 10.3109/00365599.2011.609835 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fridriksson JÖ, Folkvaljon Y, Lundström KJ, Robinson D, Carlsson S, Stattin P. Long-term adverse effects after retropubic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Nationwide, population-based study. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116: 500–506. 10.1002/jso.24687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Edwards DC, Cahn DB, Reddy M, Kivlin D, Malhotra A, Li T et al. Incisional hernia after cystectomy: incidence, risk factors and anthropometric predisposition. Can J Urol. 2018;25: 9573–9578. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Patel SV, Paskar DD, Nelson RL, Vedula SS, Steele SR. Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11: CD005661 10.1002/14651858.CD005661.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, Campanelli G, Conze J, Cuccurullo D et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia. 2015;19: 1–24. 10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bosanquet DC, Ansell J, Abdelrahman T, Cornich J, Harries R, Stimpson A et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0138745 10.1371/journal.pone.0138745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, Feychting M, Kim JL, Reuterwall C et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health. 2011;11: 450–466. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Emre Bozkurt

8 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-33796

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

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Liedberg,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Comments and questions;

1- Please comment and add information about postoperative ‘’ileus’’ incidence and correlation with MIH.

2-  There is some punctuation and printing mistakes in the text as in page 3 line  99 ‘’preforming’’!.  Please check and consider for editing and proofreading.

3- Please add comment about follow-up time that is 2.3 years. Is it sufficient or not? 

4- I would like to know that did ERAS protocol use in study group If yes, what was ERAS protocol a relation with MIH?

5- In discussion section, ‘’limitation’’ part must be in last paragraph of this section.

6-In discussion section, you have to discuss your results with literature; for example in seconda paragraph; there is no reference!

7- In this study authors reported that robotic surgery increased risk of MIH by two fold. Please ad a comment about intrabdominal pressure and its effects on radical cystectomy and also MIH.

8- In table 1a, please correct in order for ‘’Previous inguinal hernia repair; No , Yes ...results. 

9- The resolutions of Figure 1a and 1b are insufficient; I could not read the details of these figures.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 21 January 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Emre Bozkurt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear author,

Thank you for your well-designed manuscript. It needs some corrections before acceptance for publishing.

1- Please comment and add information about postoperative ‘’ileus’’ incidence and correlation with MIH.

2- There is some punctuation and printing mistakes in the text as in page 3 line 99 ‘’preforming’’!. Please check and consider for editing and proofreading.

3- Please add comment about follow-up time that is 2.3 years. Is it sufficient or not?

4- I would like to know that did ERAS protocol use in study group If yes, what was ERAS protocol a relation with MIH?

5- In discussion section, ‘’limitation’’ part must be in last paragraph of this section.

6-In discussion section, you have to discuss your results with literature; for example in seconda paragraph; there is no reference!

7- In this study authors reported that robotic surgery increased risk of MIH by two fold. Please ad a comment about intrabdominal pressure and its effects on radical cystectomy and also MIH.

8- In table 1a, please correct in order for ‘’Previous inguinal hernia repair; No , Yes ...results.

9- The resolutions of Figure 1a and 1b are insufficient; I could not read the details of these figures.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should be uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

3. In your ethics statement in the Methods section and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the data used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Line 139: "-" sign is missing in the URL, please correct the URL as https://www.R-project.org/

Line 227-247: Please move the paragraph about limitations of the letter to the final part of discussion section

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

This is a valuable orginal article about incidence of midline incisional hernia in surgery after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer from Sweden. Thank you for your great effort but there are some concerns about the study.

Comments to authors;

1- Please comment and add information about postoperative ‘’ileus’’ incidence and correlation with MIH.

2- There is some punctuation and printing mistakes in the text as in page 3 line 99 ‘’preforming’’!. Please check and consider for editing and proofreading.

3- Please add comment about follow-up time that is 2.3 years. Is it sufficient or not?

4- I would like to know that did ERAS protocol use in study group If yes, what was ERAS protocol a relation with MIH?

5- In discussion section, ‘’limitation’’ part must be in last paragraph of this section.

6-In discussion section, you have to discuss your results with literature; for example in seconda paragraph; there is no reference!

7- In this study authors reported that robotic surgery increased risk of MIH by two fold. Please ad a comment about intrabdominal pressure and its effects on radical cystectomy and also MIH.

8- In table 1a, please correct in order for ‘’Previous inguinal hernia repair; No , Yes ...results.

9- The resolutions of Figure 1a and 1b are insufficient; I could not read the details of these figures.

Sincerely yours

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0246703. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246703.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Jan 2021

Dear Editor,

Thank You for valuable input, relevant questions and comments on the manuscript “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

PONE-D-20-33796”. We have now adapted the text accordingly, and hope that the manuscript again can be considered for publication in PLOS ONE. The answers to the comments are below and marked in red, as are the changes in the revised marked-up manuscript.

Regarding data availability, the data in in BladderBaSe is partly available in annual reports from the Swedish National Registry of Urinary Bladder Cancer (SNRUBC) and also are accessible online at https://statistik.incanet.se/urinblasecancer/. Collaborators can propose and apply for studies in the BladderBaSe using a standardised form. After approved application, theproject data administrators can upload study-specific files with selected variables

to a server for statistical analysis through remote access. Users of this system will

be charged for software licences, data administration and for preprocessing of

study files. For more information contact either the PI BladderBaSe (lars.holmberg@kcl.ac.uk) or the corresponding author (fredrik.liedberg@med.lu.se).

On behalf of all authors,

kind regards!

Fredrik Liedberg

Additional Editor Comments:

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Answer: According to the style templates above the following corrections have been made:

Figure citations have now been exchanged from Figure 1a and Figure 1b to “Fig 1a” and “Fig 1b”, respectively.

Reference citations has been changed from () to “[]” throughout the manuscript.

Figure titles have been changed to bold type: “Fig 1a. Cumulative incidence with 95% CI at selected time points.” “Fig 1b. Three-year cumulative incidence midline incisional hernia and midline incisional hernia surgery.”

Acknowledgement section has been changed to Funding section.

The adress to the corresponding author has been adopted as follows: *Corresponding author: fredrik.liedberg@med.lu.se (FL)

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should be uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

Answer: Tables 1a, 1b and 1c is now formatted as part of the main manuscript and Table titles have been changed to bold type: “Table 1a. Number of patients with and without midline incisional hernia diagnosis and surgery.” “Table 1b. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analysis of known risk factors for subsequent incisional hernia diagnosis.” “Table 1c. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analysis of known risk factors for subsequent incisional hernia surgery.”

3. In your ethics statement in the Methods section and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the data used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Answer: The current study was perfomed in BladderBaSe that is a research-database with all data fully anonymized. BladderBaSe was collated without written consent from the participating individuals. To further add this information, the following sentence has been modified to: “All data used were fully anonymized during the study that was approved by the Research Ethics Board of Uppsala University, Sweden (File no. 2015/277). “

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

Answer: The following data sharing statement has now been added in the revised cover letter above: “The data in in BladderBaSe is partly available in annual reports from the Swedish National Registry of Urinary Bladder Cancer (SNRUBC) and also are accessible online at https://statistik.incanet.se/urinblasecancer/. Collaborators can propose and apply for studies in the BladderBaSe using a standardised form. After approved application, the

project data administrators can upload study-specific files with selected variables

to a server for statistical analysis through remote access. Users of this system will

be charged for software licences, data administration and for preprocessing of

study files. For more information contact either the PI BladderBaSe (lars.holmberg@kcl.ac.uk) or the corresponding author (fredrik.liedberg@med.lu.se).”

If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

Reviewer #1:

Line 139: "-" sign is missing in the URL, please correct the URL as https://www.R-project.org/

Answer: The URL has now been corrected to: https://www.r-project.org

Line 227-247: Please move the paragraph about limitations of the letter to the final part of discussion section

Answer: Same comment as by Reviewer #2: The limitation part has now been moved to the last paragraph of this section. The references have been adjusted, accordingly.

Reviewer #2:

Dear authors,

This is a valuable orginal article about incidence of midline incisional hernia in surgery after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer from Sweden. Thank you for your great effort but there are some concerns about the study.

Comments to authors;

1- Please comment and add information about postoperative ‘’ileus’’ incidence and correlation with MIH.

Answer: The number (proportion (%)) of individuals that were operated for postoperative ileus within 60 days of cystectomy that later were operated for incisional hernia was 11/379 (3%) compared to 178/5267 (3%) in patients without postoperative ileus surgery, thus no difference. The corresponding hazard ratio for MIH diagnosis during follow-up after ileus surgery within 60 days of cystectomy was 1.07 (0.6-2.0). To add and comment this information, we have now added the following sentence in the results section: “Furthermore, among the 189 patients operated for postoperative ileus within 60 days of surgery the risk of MIH diagnosis was similar compared to those who did not (hazard ratio 1.1 (0.6-2.0)).”

2- There is some punctuation and printing mistakes in the text as in page 3 line 99 ‘’preforming’’!. Please check and consider for editing and proofreading.

Answer: “Preforming” has now been corrected to “performing”.

3- Please add comment about follow-up time that is 2.3 years. Is it sufficient or not?

Answer: To further explain the possibility of more events with longer follow-up, the following sentence has been added in the discussion section: “Based on the continuously rising cumulative incidence curves for both MIH diagnosis and repair in Fig 1a, a longer median follow-up than the current 2.3 years will likely add new events, which also can be considered a study limitation.“

4- I would like to know that did ERAS protocol use in study group If yes, what was ERAS protocol a relation with MIH?

Answer: Unfortunately, the successive adoption to ERAS during cystectomy care in Sweden with over twenty pre-, intra- and postoperative ingredients makes it impossible to elucidate which patient in the current study that received some or all measures associated with ERAS. To explain this lack of information, the following sentence has been added in the material and methods section: “Information about whether early recovery after surgery (ERAS) measures were applied before, during and after radical cystectomy was lacking.”

5- In discussion section, ‘’limitation’’ part must be in last paragraph of this section.

Answer: Same comment as by Reviewer #1: The limitation part has now been moved to the last paragraph of this section. The references have been adjusted, accordingly.

6-In discussion section, you have to discuss your results with literature; for example in seconda paragraph; there is no reference!

Answer: To further put our results into the context of available literature, the following wording has been added in the second paragraph in the discussion section: “Urinary diversion with an orthotopic neobladder has previously been reported to increase the risk of MIH [1], however orthotopic diversion were not associated with a decreased risk in the current study.” Furthermore, regarding the finding that younger age was associated with increased risk of MIH in the current study but not in other studies, the following sentence and new reference Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN. The modern management of incisional hernias. BMJ. 2012 May 9; 344:e2843.) have been added in the third paragraph in the discussion section that also previously lacked a reference putting our findings into the scientific context:” Similarly, the finding that patients with MIH were younger than those without MIH in the present study is difficult to explain, but as age not were not associated with increased risk of MIH either as reported in other studies [11], probably selection mechanisms and unknown confounders contributed to this finding.”

7- In this study authors reported that robotic surgery increased risk of MIH by two fold. Please ad a comment about intrabdominal pressure and its effects on radical cystectomy and also MIH.

Answer: To our knowledge there are no studies available reporting association between laparoscopy, pneumoperitoneum and later incisional hernias. To further comment this fact, the following sentence has been added in the discussion section: “Whether increased intraabdominal pressure per se during robotic assisted cystectomy is associated with the development of MIH is not known.”

8- In table 1a, please correct in order for ‘’Previous inguinal hernia repair; No , Yes ...results.

Answer: This typo has now also been corrected.

9- The resolutions of Figure 1a and 1b are insufficient; I could not read the details of these figures.

Answer: Figure 1a and 1b have now been adjusted and with better resolution.

Decision Letter 1

Emre Bozkurt

25 Jan 2021

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

PONE-D-20-33796R1

Dear Dr. Liedberg,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Emre Bozkurt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Emre Bozkurt

26 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-33796R1

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

Dear Dr. Liedberg:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Emre Bozkurt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of patient-related and are confidential. The data in in BladderBaSe is partly available in annual reports from the Swedish National Registry of Urinary Bladder Cancer (SNRUBC) and also are accessible online at https://statistik.incanet.se/urinblasecancer/. Collaborators can propose and apply for studies in the BladderBaSe using a standardised form. After approved application, the project data administrators can upload study-specific files with selected variables to a server for statistical analysis through remote access. Users of this system will be charged for software licences, data administration and for preprocessing of study files. For more information contact either the PI BladderBaSe (lars.holmberg@kcl.ac.uk) or the corresponding author (fredrik.liedberg@med.lu.se).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES