Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2022 Aug;26(34):1–100. doi: 10.3310/CMWC8368

Hughes abdominal closure versus standard mass closure to reduce incisional hernias following surgery for colorectal cancer: the HART RCT.

Susan O'Connell, Saiful Islam, Bernadette Sewell, Angela Farr, Laura Knight, Nadim Bashir, Rhiannon Harries, Sian Jones, Andrew Cleves, Greg Fegan, Alan Watkins, Jared Torkington
PMCID: PMC9421561  PMID: 35938554

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias can cause chronic pain and complications and affect quality of life. Surgical repair requires health-care resources and has a significant associated failure rate. A prospective, multicentre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Hughes abdominal closure method compared with standard mass closure following surgery for colorectal cancer. The study randomised, in a 1 : 1 ratio, 802 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer from 28 surgical departments in UK centres.

INTERVENTION

Hughes abdominal closure or standard mass closure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year, as assessed by clinical examination. Within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses over 1 year were conducted from an NHS and a social care perspective. A key secondary outcome was quality of life, and other outcomes included the incidence of incisional hernias as detected by computed tomography scanning.

RESULTS

The incidence of incisional hernia at 1-year clinical examination was 50 (14.8%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 57 (17.1%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.27; p = 0.4). In year 2, the incidence of incisional hernia was 78 (28.7%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 84 (31.8%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.25; p = 0.43). Computed tomography scanning identified a total of 301 incisional hernias across both arms, compared with 100 identified by clinical examination at the 1-year follow-up. Computed tomography scanning missed 16 incisional hernias that were picked up by clinical examination. Hughes abdominal closure was found to be less cost-effective than standard mass closure. The mean incremental cost for patients undergoing Hughes abdominal closure was £616.45 (95% confidence interval -£699.56 to £1932.47; p = 0.3580). Quality of life did not differ significantly between the study arms at any time point.

LIMITATIONS

As this was a pragmatic trial, the control arm allowed surgeon discretion in the approach to standard mass closure, introducing variability in the techniques and equipment used. Intraoperative randomisation may result in a loss of equipoise for some surgeons. Follow-up was limited to 2 years, which may not have been enough time to see a difference in the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Hughes abdominal closure did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernias detected by clinical examination and was less cost-effective at 1 year than standard mass closure in colorectal cancer patients. Computed tomography scanning may be more effective at identifying incisional hernias than clinical examination, but the clinical benefit of this needs further research.

FUTURE WORK

An extended follow-up using routinely collected NHS data sets aims to report on incisional hernia rates at 2-5 years post surgery to investigate any potential mortality benefit of the closure methods. Furthermore, the proportion of incisional hernias identified by a computed tomography scan (at 1 and 2 years post surgery), but not during clinical examination (occult hernias), proceeding to surgical repair within 3-5 years after the initial operation will be explored.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN25616490.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Bowel cancer treatment involves surgery for the majority of patients. A complication of this surgery is the formation of a hernia at the site of the incision in the abdominal wall, known as an incisional hernia. The lining of the abdomen, fat or the intestine can squeeze through the gap and form a lump under the skin. An incisional hernia can form any time after surgery and can cause serious complications and pain, and can also affect the patient’s quality of life. Surgery to correct incisional hernias is not always successful, so finding a way of preventing them is important. This research compares the traditional way of sewing up the abdomen, where the two sides are brought together in one layer with a continuous thread, with an alternative method called the Hughes abdominal closure method/Hughes repair. In the Hughes repair, a series of horizontal and vertical stitches are arranged to spread the load and ease the tension across the wound. A total of 802 patients from 28 sites in the UK were recruited to the trial. Half of the patients were randomly allocated to have traditional abdominal closure and half were randomised to have Hughes abdominal closure. All were followed up for 1 year after surgery to assess whether or not an incisional hernia had occurred. We also assessed quality of life during follow-up, and we compared the costs and benefits of each procedure to see which option was the better value for money. By comparing the results from the two methods, it was hoped that the best method of abdominal closure to reduce the risk of an incisional hernia occurring would be found. The analysis of the data suggested that the risk of an incisional hernia was no different with either closure method. Furthermore, Hughes abdominal closure was more expensive and provided less value for money than standard abdominal closure.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Harries RL, Cornish J, Bosanquet D, Rees B, Horwood J, Islam S, et al. Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART)–abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: feasibility trial for a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017;7:e017235. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017235 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Cornish J, Harries RL, Bosanquet D, Rees B, Ansell J, Frewer N, et al. Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) – abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016;17:454. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1573-0 doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1573-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Braga M, Frasson M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Civelli V, Di Carlo V. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in cancer patients: long-term complications, quality of life, and survival. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48:2217–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0185-7 doi: 10.1007/s10350-005-0185-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Kuhry E, Schwenk W, Gaupset R, Romild U, Bonjer J. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev 2008;34:498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.011 doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Pereira JA, Pera M, Grande L. [Incidence of incisional hernia after open and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.] Cir Esp 2013;91:44–9 [abstract only]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2012.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.cireng.2012.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Skipworth JR, Khan Y, Motson RW, Arulampalam TH, Engledow AH. Incisional hernia rates following laparoscopic colorectal resection. Int J Surg 2010;8:470–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.06.008 doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Winslow ER, Fleshman JW, Birnbaum EH, Brunt LM. Wound complications of laparoscopic vs. open colectomy. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1420–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8837-3 doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-8837-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Bosanquet D, Ansell J, Abdelrahman T, Cornish J, Harries R, Stimpson A, et al. Systematic review and meta-regression of factors affecting midline incisional hernia rates: analysis of 14618 patients. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0138745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. Hodgson NC, Malthaner RA, Ostbye T. The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2000;231:436–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200003000-00018 doi: 10.1097/00000658-200003000-00018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. van ‘t Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J. Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg 2002;89:1350–6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02258.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02258.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Weiland DE, Bay RC, Del Sordi S. Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg 1998;176:666–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(98)00277-3 doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(98)00277-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, Büchler MW, Seiler CM. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010;251:843–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d973e4 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d973e4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Gillion JF, Sanders D, Miserez M, Muysoms F. The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: a multicentric cost analysis. Hernia 2016;20:819–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1480-z doi: 10.1007/s10029-016-1480-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Soliani G, De Troia A, Portinari M, Targa S, Carcoforo P, Vasquez G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study with costs analysis on 269 patients. Hernia 2017;21:609–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1601-3 doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1601-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Earle D, Seymour N, Fellinger E, Perez A. Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: a single-institution analysis of hospital resource utilization for 884 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 2006;20:71–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0091-z doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0091-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Finan KR, Kilgore ML, Hawn MT. Open suture versus mesh repair of primary incisional hernias: a cost-utility analysis. Hernia 2009;13:173–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-008-0462-1 doi: 10.1007/s10029-008-0462-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Plymale MA, Ragulojan R, Davenport DL, Roth JS. Ventral and incisional hernia: the cost of comorbidities and complications. Surg Endosc 2017;31:341–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4977-8 doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4977-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. NBOCA 2019. National Bowel Cancer Audit 2019: An Audit of the Care Received by People with Bowel Cancer in England and Wales v2.0. URL: www.nboca.org.uk/reports/annual-report-2019/ (accessed June 2020).
  19. Kirchhoff P, Clavien PA, Hahnloser D. Complications in colorectal surgery: risk factors and preventative strategies. Patient Saf Surg 2010;4:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-4-5 doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-4-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg 2012;204:144–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012 doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009;3:e123–30. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005661.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005661.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Fortelny RH, Baumann P, Thasler WE, Albertsmeier M, Riedl S, Steurer W, et al. Effect of suture technique on the occurrence of incisional hernia after elective midline abdominal wall closure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0572-x doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0572-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Heger P, Feißt M, Krisam J, Klose C, Dörr-Harim C, Tenckhoff S, et al. Hernia reduction following laparotomy using small stitch abdominal wall closure with and without mesh augmentation (the HULC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2019;20:738. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3921-3 doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3921-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Rahbari NN, Knebel P, Kieser M, Bruckner T, Bartsch DK, Friess H, et al. Design and current status of CONTINT: continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy – a randomized controlled multicenter trial [ NCT00544583.] Trials 2012;13:72. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-72 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Small Versus Large Bite Closure of Emergency Midline Laparaotomy (E-STITCH). ClinicalTrials.gov; 2019. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT04098380 (accessed September 2019).
  27. Hernia After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: An RCT Comparing 4 : 1-technique With or Without a Reinforced Tension Line Suture (Rein4CeTo1). ClinicalTrials.gov; 2018. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT03390764 (accessed September 2019).
  28. Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, Lont HE, van Doorn HC, Heisterkamp J, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:1254–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60459-7 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60459-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Declaration of Helsinki (1964). BMJ 1996;313:1448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448a doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448a. [DOI]
  30. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Good Clinical Practice (GCP). URL: www.nihr.ac.uk/health-and-care-professionals/learning-and-support/good-clinical-practice.htm (accessed September 2019).
  31. Hughes Repair Instructional Video. URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn1Yq_ID3w0 (accessed March 2021).
  32. Russell D, Hoare ZS, Whitaker R, Whitaker CJ, Russell IT. Generalized method for adaptive randomization in clinical trials. Stat Med 2011;30:922–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4175 doi: 10.1002/sim.4175. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Ward WL, Hahn EA, Mo F, Hernandez L, Tulsky DS, Cella D. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) quality of life instrument. Qual Life Res 1999;8:181–95. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008821826499 doi: 10.1023/A:1008821826499. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Hadi M. Gibbons E. Fitzpatrick R. A Structured Review of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Colorectal Cancer. Oxford: Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Group; 2010. URL: https://phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk/newpubs.php (accessed 5 June 2020).
  36. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (medDRA). URL: www.meddra.org/ (accessed March 2021).
  38. FACIT Group. FACT-C. URL: www.facit.org/measures/FACT-C (accessed March 2021).
  39. Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group and EPPI-Centre. CCEMG-EPPI-Centre Cost Converter. 2019. URL: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/default.aspx (accessed July 2019).
  40. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2018.
  42. Barker J. Interactive complexity and comorbidity splits in Health Resource Group 4+. Br J Healthc Manag 2015;21:433–9. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2015.21.9.433 doi: 10.12968/bjhc.2015.21.9.433. [DOI]
  43. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2017 to 2018. 2018. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed September 2019).
  44. Beecham J, Knapp M. Client Service Receipt Inventory. 1997. URL: www.dirum.org/assets/downloads/634462388066137028-CSRI.pdf (accessed September 2019).
  45. Eichstaedt KE, Kovatch K, Maroof DA. A less conservative method to adjust for familywise error rate in neuropsychological research: the Holm’s sequential Bonferroni procedure. NeuroRehabilitation 2013;32:693–6. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-130893 doi: 10.3233/NRE-130893. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Robles-Zurita J, Boyd KA, Briggs AH, Iveson T, Kerr RS, Saunders MP, et al. SCOT: a comparison of cost-effectiveness from a large randomised phase III trial of two durations of adjuvant Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2018;119:1332–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0319-z doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0319-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Brazier JE, Roberts JR. The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care 2004;42:851–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Perneger TV, Burnand B. A simple imputation algorithm reduced missing data in SF-12 health surveys. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:142–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Kroese LF, Sneiders D, Kleinrensink GJ, Muysoms F, Lange JF. Comparing different modalities for the diagnosis of incisional hernia: a systematic review. Hernia 2018;22:229–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1725-5 doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1725-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Hubner M, Nygren J, Demartines N, Francis N, et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018. World J Surg 2019;43:659–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y doi: 10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. van Rooijen S, Carli F, Dalton S, Thomas G, Bojesen R, Le Guen M, et al. Multimodal prehabilitation in colorectal cancer patients to improve functional capacity and reduce postoperative complications: the first international randomized controlled trial for multimodal prehabilitation. BMC Cancer 2019;19:98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-5232-6 doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-5232-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5 doi: 10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Jensen KK, Emmertsen KJ, Laurberg S, Krarup PM. Long-term impact of incisional hernia on quality of life after colonic cancer resection. Hernia 2020;24:265–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01978-w doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01978-w. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Rogmark P, Petersson U, Bringman S, Ezra E, Österberg J, Montgomery A. Quality of life and surgical outcome 1 year after open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: PROLOVE: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2016;263:244–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001305 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001305. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. National Cancer Intelligence Network. Cancer Incidence and Survival by Major Ethnic Group, England, 2002–2006. URL: www.ncin.org.uk/publications/reports/reports_archive (accessed March 2021).
  56. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online). London: BNJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed September 2019).

RESOURCES