Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Karen Bloor a Department of Health Sciences, University of
York, York YO10 5DD, b Department of
Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
B15 2TT Correspondence to: K
Bloor
keb3{at}york.ac.uk
After the introduction of Bassini's procedure in the
late 19th century, methods of repairing hernias changed little until the 1990s, when synthetic mesh and laparoscopic methods
arrived.1 In contrast to the open mesh technique,
laparoscopic surgery remains uncommon. In January 2001, the National
Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance that stated,
"For repair of primary inguinal hernia, open [mesh] should be
the preferred surgical procedure."2 We describe patterns
of surgical repair of inguinal hernias and assess the impact of NICE's guidance.
We found 217 000 cases with a primary procedure code for
primary surgery for an inguinal hernia from the hospital episode statistics database for England from April 1998 to December 2001. Of
these, secondary procedure codes for minimal access surgery identified 8960 (4.1%) cases in which surgery was laparoscopic.
We used the software package SAS to do interrupted time series
analysis on the rate of laparoscopic repairs as a proportion of all
primary repairs of inguinal hernias, weekly, at 143 time points before
publication of the NICE guidance and at 51 time points after. We also
examined the effects of the NICE guidance on the overall rate of
laparoscopic repair of hernias, assuming no change in case mix. A first
order autoregressive model gave the best fit.
Publication of the NICE guidance did not reduce the proportion of
repairs done laparoscopically. Before the NICE guidance, the rate of
laparoscopic as a proportion of all repairs was increasing slowly and
non-significantly by 0.08% (95% confidence interval The pattern was similar in the effects of NICE guidance on the overall
use of laparoscopic repair of hernias. Before publication of the
guidance, the annual increase in the number of laparoscopic repairs was
3.4 ( Guidance from NICE on laparoscopic repair of hernias had no impact
on practice during the first year after publication. Despite the
clarity of the advice given on laparoscopic hernia repair, on this
occasion, NICE guidance did not achieve the desired change in clinical
practice. Resistance to the guidance is illustrated by an appeal lodged
to NICE and other articles 3; however, it is in areas of
uncertainty and controversy that NICE should provide
guidance.
![]()
Methods and results
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References
0.09% to
0.26%) per year. After issue of the guidance the rate increased
slightly to 0.14% (0.02% to 0.25%) per year (figure).
3.3 to 10.0) procedures, and afterwards the annual rate of
increase rose slightly to 4.4 (0.0 to 8.6) procedures. Rates before and
after did not differ significantly (P=0.6).
![]()
Comment
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References

View larger version (26K):
[in a new window]
Primary surgery for inguinal hernia repairs done
laparoscopically as a percentage of all repairs done from April 1998 to
November 2001, before and after the publication of NICE guidance in
January 2001
Laparoscopic repair of hernias is a small part of NHS practice, but if our findings are applicable to other areas on which NICE has published guidance, NICE needs more active dissemination and implementation procedures. Guidance from NICE could be incorporated more directly into systems of clinical governance in the NHS.
Our analysis shows that routinely collected data can be used in
clinical governance. Chief executives and medical directors of trust
hospitals have access to hospital episode statistics and could use
these data to monitor implementation of guidance as part of clinical
governance. To improve evidence based practice in the NHS, guidance
must be implemented more efficiently and clinical practice should be
reviewed and monitored using well validated data.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
KB and AM thank the late H Brendan Devlin (1932-98) for valuable discussions about health services research in general and hernia repair in particular. We all thank Anne Burton for administrative support.
Contributors: KB had the original idea for the study, contributed to data analysis, and, with ZK, drafted the paper. NF designed and, with KB and ZK, did the data analysis, KB, NF, ZK, and AM interpreted the data and revised the paper. KB is guarantor.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: KB is funded by a Medical Research Council Special Training Fellowship in Health Services Research and by the Department of Health Policy R&D programme, which also partially supports AM.
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Devlin HB, Kingsnorth A, O'Dwyer PJ, Bloor K. Management of abdominal hernias. London: Chapman and Hall Medical, 1998. |
| 2. | National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia. London: NICE, 2001. (Technology appraisal guidance No 18.) |
| 3. |
Motson R.
Why does NICE not recommend laparoscopic herniorraphy?
BMJ
2002;
324:
1092-1094 |
(Accepted 20 November 2002)
Read all Rapid Responses