BACKGROUND: Component separation (CS) procedures have become an important part of surgeons\' armamentarium. However, the exact criteria for training, procedure/mesh choice, as well as patient selection for CS remains undefined. Herein we aimed to identify trends in CS utilization between various cohorts of practicing surgeons.
METHODS: Members of the Americas Hernia Society were queried using an online survey. Responders were stratified according to their experience, practice profile (private vs academic, general vs hernia surgery), and volume (low (< 10/year) vs high) of CS procedures. We used Chi-squared tests to evaluate significant associations between surgeon characteristics and outcomes.
RESULTS: 275 responses with overwhelming male preponderance (88%) were collected. The two most common self-identifiers were \"general\" (66%) and \"hernia\" (28%) surgeon. PCS was the most commonly (67%) used type of CS; endoscopic ACS was least common (3%). Low-volume surgeons were more likely to utilize the ACS (p < 0.05). Only 7% of respondents learned PCS during their residency, as compared to 36% that use ACS. 65% felt 0-10 cases was sufficient to become proficient in their preferred technique. 10 cm-wide defect was the most common indication for CS; 23% used it for 5-8 cm defects. Self-identified \"hernia\" and high-volume surgeons were more likely to use synthetic mesh in the setting of previous wound infections and/or contaminated field (p < 0.05). More general/low-volume surgeons use biologic mesh. Contraindications to elective CS varied widely in the cohort, and 9.5% would repair poorly optimized patients electively. Severe morbid obesity was the most feared comorbidity to preclude CS.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of CS varies widely between surgeons. In this cohort, we discovered that PCS was the most commonly used technique, especially by hernia/high-volume surgeons. There are differences in mesh utilization between high-volume and low-volume surgeons, specifically in contaminated fields. Despite its prevalence, CS training, indications/contraindications, and patient selection must be better defined.

Repair of ventral and incisional hernias remains a costly challenge for health care systems. In a previous study of a single surgeon\'s elective open ventral hernia repair (VHR) practice, a cost model was developed, which predicted over 70% of hospital cost variation. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the ventral hernia cost model with multiple surgeons\' elective open VHR cases and extending to include nonelective and laparoscopic VHR.
With the University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board approval, elective and emergent cases of open and laparoscopic VHR performed by multiple surgeons over 3 y were identified. Perioperative variables were obtained from the local American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program database and electronic medical record review. Hospital cost data were obtained from the hospital cost accounting system. Forward multivariable regression of log-transformed costs identified independent cost drivers (P for entry < 0.05, and P for exit > 0.10).
Of the 387 VHRs, 74% were open repairs; mean age was 55 y, and 52% of patients were female. For open, elective cases (n = 211; mean cost of $19,145), the previously reported six-factor cost model predicted 45% of the total cost variation. With all VHRs included, additional variables were found to independently drive costs, predicting 59% of the total cost variation from the base cost. The biggest cost drivers were inpatient status (+$1013), use of biologic mesh (+$1131), preoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome/sepsis (+$894), and preoperative open wound (+$786).
Ventral hernia repair cost variability is predictable. Understanding the independent drivers of cost may be helpful in controlling costs and in negotiating appropriate reimbursement with payers.