4/16/2021 https://emedicine.medscape.

com/article/2000990-print

emedicine.medscape.com

Umbilical Hernia Repair

Updated: Oct 03, 2019
Author: Dana Taylor, MD, FACS; Chief Editor: Vikram Kate, FRCS, MS, MBBS, PhD, FACS, FACG, FRCS(Edin),
FRCS(Glasg), FIMSA, MAMS, MASCRS, FFST(Ed)

Overview

Background
Umbilical hernias acccount for 10% of abdominal wall hernias.[1] Conditions that lead to increased intra-abdominal pressure
and weakened fascia at the level of the umbilicus (eg, obesity, ascites, multiple pregnancies, and large abdominal tumors)
contribute to the development of umbilical hernias.[2]

Umbilical hernias are typically small with a narrow neck, a configuration that increases the risk of strangulation and
incarceration. Omentum, small bowel, and colon can be found within the sac. A direct or true umbilical hernia consists of a
symmetric protrusion through the umbilical ring and is seen in neonates or infants. Indirect umbilical (paraumbilical) hernias
protrude above or below the umbilicus and are the most common type of umbilical hernia in adults.[3]

Infantile umbilical hernias result from failure of the umbilical ring to close. The umbilical cord structures fail to fuse with the
umbilical foramen, therefore leaving a patent umbilical ring. In contrast, anterior abdominal wall defects such as
gastroschisis and omphalocele result from disruption in the development of the abdominal wall structures.

The distinction should be made between these two entities because of the difference in management. Umbilical hernias are
managed with observation; these defects typically close by age 4 or 5 years. Any defects that persist beyond this age
should undergo surgical repair.

The most common symptom of umbilical hernias is pain at the umbilicus (44% of cases). Other complaints include pressure
(20%) and nausea and vomiting (9%).[4] Complications such as irreducibility, obstruction, strangulation, skin ulceration, and
rupture are more common in paraumbilical hernias than in other abdominal hernias.

Indications
All adult umbilical hernias should be repaired, owing to the high risk of complications.[2] Indications for operative repair
include the following:

Pain
Incarceration
Strangulation
Defect larger than 1 cm
Skin ulceration
Hernia rupture

Incarceration or strangulation is a particular concern in pregnant patients.[5]

With infantile umbilical hernias, parents should be reassured; these typically close spontaneously by age 5 years. If a hernia
persists beyond this age or the defect is larger than 2 cm, operative repair is indicated.

Contraindications
Cirrhosis and uncontrolled ascites are relative contraindications for elective open umbilical hernia repair. Owing to the
increased surgical risk, elective repair is generally avoided in patients with Child-Pugh class B and C cirrhosis.

In a literature review by McKay et al,[6] small retrospective studies showed decreasing morbidity and mortality in patients
with ascites and cirrhosis, to 2.7% and 21%, respectively. A small retrospective single-institution study by Yu et al suggested

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print 1/5
4/16/2021 https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print

that early elective umbilical hernia repair can be safely carried out in cirrhotic patients with minimally invasive aproaches and
appropriate perioperative care.[7]

Unfortunately, no consensus exists on the timing of repair in patients with cirrhosis. However, it is recommended to obtain
preoperative control of ascites via medical management or peritoneal drainage.

Technical Considerations
Treatable conditions such as ascites and obesity should be addressed and treated in advance of elective repair. Obese
patients should be counseled on weight loss before surgery. The mortality associated with repair in patients with
uncontrolled ascites is reportedly 2%, and the recurrence rate is high.[4] Ascites should be controlled with medical
management, diuretics, and dietary changes before elective repair.

Outcomes
A nationwide prospective study of umbilical and epigastric hernias demonstrated that complications necessitating
readmission included hematoma (46% of cases), seroma (19%), and pain (77%).[8] This study also found an overall rate of
readmission rate of 5%, mostly due to the aforementioned complications. A retrospective analysis of 150 veterans found an
overall recurrence rate of 6%, with 1.5% in the nonmesh group; this study also found an infection rate of 19%.[9]

Recurrence rates associated with primary tissue repair have been reported to range from 15% to 40%.[1] A systematic
review and meta-analysis by Aslani and Brown[1] showed a 10-fold decreased risk of recurrence in mesh repair as
compared with primary suture repair. An increased risk of recurrence is seen in obese patients and defects larger than 3 cm.
Other factors associated with an increased recurrence rate include smoking and diabetes.

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database demonstrated
decreased overall morbidity in laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair as compared with open repair.[10] Laparoscopic repair
has been found to result in fewer complications, decreased length of stay, and decreased risk of recurrence. However, the
disadvantages associated with laparoscopic surgery, such as increased cost, operating time, and the risk of a general
anesthetic, should be considered.

In an analysis using NSQIP data to evaluate perioperative outcomes for three general surgery procedures, Zielsdorf et al
found that the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was predictive of an increased risk of postoperative
complications after umbilical hernia repair.[11] For every 1-point increase over the mean MELD score (8.5), the risk of
postoperative complications in patients who underwent umbilical hernia repair rose by 13.8%.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic repair of umbilical and
paraumbilical hernias with those of open repair, Hajibandeh et al found that laparoscopic repair appeared to be associated
with reductions in wound infection, wound dehiscence, recurrence rate, and length of stay, albeit at the cost of a longer
operating time.[12] They noted, however, that the best available evidence was of only moderate quality and that selection
bias was a concern, given that most of the studies examined were nonrandomized.

Periprocedural Care

Preprocedural Evaluation
Umbilical hernias are typically diagnosed with a detailed history and physical examination. Patients generally complain of
pain or a lump at the umbilicus. On physical examination, a protrusion at the umbilicus can be seen. Paraumbilical hernias
are more common in women than in men. Findings are confirmed by palpating a fascial defect or by visualizing the hernia
with increasing intra-abdominal pressure by straining. The fascial defect is usually smaller than the sac.

Computed tomography (CT) is not required but can be used to diagnose defects that are difficult to appreciate on physical
examination.

Equipment
A general surgery tray with basic surgical instruments should be used. The type of mesh used is typically based on the
individual surgeon's preference, but polypropylene or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh is a common choice.
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print 2/5
4/16/2021 https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print

Patient Preparation
Anesthesia

General endotracheal anesthesia or intravenous sedation with local anesthesia[13] can be used for open repair.

Positioning

The patient should be placed in the supine position with arms out at 90°.

Monitoring & Follow-up

Patients should be instructed to avoid heavy lifting for 2-4 weeks postoperatively. Obese patients should be counseled on
strategies for weight management. Continued medical control helps to decrease the risk of recurrence in patients with
ascites.

Technique

Approach Considerations
Hernia repair with mesh should be considered for patients with defects larger than 4 cm. The type of mesh to be used is
selected on the basis of the surgeon's preference and experience. Open mesh repair of umbilical hernia appears to be
associated with significantly lower recurrence rates than suture repair in adults.[14]

Laparoscopic repair should be considered for obese patients, patients with defects larger than 4 cm, and patients with
recurrent hernias. Robotic assistance has facilitated this approach.[15, 16, 17, 18]

Repair of Umbilical Hernia

The traditional Mayo repair consists of a vertical overlap with adjacent aponeurotic structures. A curvilinear transverse
incision is made in a natural skin crease and should not exceed 180°. Additionally, an elliptical incision can be used for large
hernias that require excision of excess skin.

With a fine-tipped instrument and electrocautery, abundant skin overlying the hernia is excised to clear fat from the hernia
sac and to clear the abdominal wall circumferentially from the edges of the defect.

The incision in the aponeurosis is extended longitudinally on either side of the hernia defect. The hernia sac is encircled and
excised from the edges of the fascia. The sac is transected from the base of the umbilicus. The contents of the hernia sac
are reduced, and the sac is opened to allow inspection of the contents. All adhesions and scar tissue are lysed.

The contents are inspected for viability, and any compromised adherent omentum is resected.

The peritoneum is closed with an absorbable running suture. Flaps of fascia are raised off the peritoneum and overlapped
with a 3-cm overlap. The flaps are closed with a monofilament nonabsorbable or long-acting absorbable 0 horizontal
mattress suture. Relaxing incisions are placed 5 cm lateral to the defect. The overlying fascia is fixed to the anterior
abdominal wall, and the umbilicus is inverted by fixing the undersurface to the fascia.

For defects larger than 4 cm, a mesh onlay, sublay, or underlay should be used. Sublay mesh should be placed between the
rectus muscle and the posterior sheath. For a mesh underlay, adhesions to the peritoneum should be excluded.
Nonabsorbable 0 sutures are used to secure the mesh to the anterior abdominal wall.

The peritoneum is then closed with interrupted or running absorbable suture. The undersurface of the umbilicus is fixed to
the fascia. If large skin flaps have been raised, the subcutaneous space can be closed with absorbable suture or closed
suction drains.

The wound is then closed with a running subcuticular suture. The onlay mesh is sutured to the fascia above the peritoneum
with a 3-cm overlap on all sides.

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print 3/5
4/16/2021 https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print

The use of a tentacle-shaped mesh implant (with a central body and integrated radiating arms at its edge) for fixation-free
repair of umbilical hernias has been described.[19]

Complications
Potential complications of umbilical hernia repair include the following (see Outcomes):

Seroma
Hematoma
Wound infection
Bowel injury
Paralytic ileus
Hernia recurrence

A retrospective study by Shankar et al identified the following factors as predictors of umbilical hernia recurrence[20] :

Ascites
Liver disease
Diabetes
Obesity
Primary suture repair without mesh

A study by Donovan et al (N = 979) found the following factors to be predictive of recurrence after open umbilical hernia
repair[21] :

Higher body mass index (BMI)

Concurrent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
Current smoking
Diabetes
Primary closure repair of hernias ≥1.5 cm
Postoperative infection

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Dana Taylor, MD, FACS Assistant Professor of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of
Medicine; Consulting Surgeon, University General Surgeons, PC

Dana Taylor, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Chest Physicians, American
College of Surgeons, Southeastern Surgical Congress, Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, American Medical
Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Camille Blackledge, MD Resident Physician, Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center
College of Medicine

Camille Blackledge, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, Society of American
Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Vikram Kate, FRCS, MS, MBBS, PhD, FACS, FACG, FRCS(Edin), FRCS(Glasg), FIMSA, MAMS, MASCRS,
FFST(Ed) Professor of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery and Senior Consultant Surgeon, Jawaharlal Institute of
Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), India

Vikram Kate, FRCS, MS, MBBS, PhD, FACS, FACG, FRCS(Edin), FRCS(Glasg), FIMSA, MAMS, MASCRS, FFST(Ed) is a
member of the following medical societies: American College of Gastroenterology, American College of Surgeons, American
Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Fellow of the Faculty of Surgical Trainers (RCSEd), Royal College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Glasgow, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Royal College of Surgeons of England, Society for Surgery
of the Alimentary Tract, Fellow of the Faculty of Surgical Trainers (RCSEd)
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print 4/5
4/16/2021 https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References

1. Aslani N, Brown CJ. Does mesh offer an advantage over tissue in the open repair of umbilical hernias? A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Hernia. 2010 Oct. 14 (5):455-62. [Medline].

2. Miller HJ, Novitsky YW. Ventral hernia and abdominal release procedures. Yeo CJ, DeMeester SR, McFadden DW, Matthews
JB, Fleshman JW, eds. Shackelford’s Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019. Vol 1: 571-89.

3. Conze J, Prescher A, Schlächter M, Schumacher O. The umbilical hernia. Schumpelick V, Fitzgibbons RJ, eds. Recurrent
Hernia: Prevention and Treatment. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Medizin Verlag; 2007. 359-64.

4. Rodriguez JA, Hinder RA. Surgical management of umbilical hernia. Oper Techn Gen Surg. 2004 Sep. 6 (3):156-64.

5. Haskins IN, Rosen MJ, Prabhu AS, Amdur RL, Rosenblatt S, Brody F, et al. Umbilical hernia repair in pregnant patients: review
of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Hernia. 2017 Oct. 21 (5):767-770.
[Medline].

6. McKay A, Dixon E, Bathe O, Sutherland F. Umbilical hernia repair in the presence of cirrhosis and ascites: results of a survey
and review of the literature. Hernia. 2009 Oct. 13 (5):461-8. [Medline].

7. Yu BC, Chung M, Lee G. The repair of umbilical hernia in cirrhotic patients: 18 consecutive case series in a single institute. Ann
Surg Treat Res. 2015 Aug. 89 (2):87-91. [Medline].

8. Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen M, Iversen MG, Rosenberg J, Jørgensen LN. A nationwide study on readmission, morbidity,
and mortality after umbilical and epigastric hernia repair. Hernia. 2011 Oct. 15 (5):541-6. [Medline].

9. Farrow B, Awad S, Berger DH, Albo D, Lee L, Subramanian A, et al. More than 150 consecutive open umbilical hernia repairs in
a major Veterans Administration Medical Center. Am J Surg. 2008 Nov. 196 (5):647-51. [Medline].

10. Mason RJ, Moazzez A, Sohn HJ, Berne TV, Katkhouda N. Laparoscopic versus open anterior abdominal wall hernia repair: 30-
day morbidity and mortality using the ACS-NSQIP database. Ann Surg. 2011 Oct. 254 (4):641-52. [Medline].

11. Zielsdorf SM, Kubasiak JC, Janssen I, Myers JA, Luu MB. A NSQIP Analysis of MELD and Perioperative Outcomes in General
Surgery. Am Surg. 2015 Aug. 81 (8):755-9. [Medline].

12. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Sreh A, Khan A, Subar D, Jones L. Laparoscopic versus open umbilical or paraumbilical hernia
repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia. 2017 Dec. 21 (6):905-916. [Medline].

13. Jairam AP, Kaufmann R, Muysoms F, Jeekel J, Lange JF. The feasibility of local anesthesia for the surgical treatment of
umbilical hernia: a systematic review of the literature. Hernia. 2017 Apr. 21 (2):223-231. [Medline]. [Full Text].

14. Shrestha D, Shrestha A, Shrestha B. Open mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia: Meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2019 Feb. 62:62-66. [Medline].

15. Bilezikian JA, Tenzel PL, Eckhauser FE, Hope WW. Primary non-complicated midline ventral hernia: overview of approaches
and controversies. Hernia. 2019 Sep 6. [Medline].

16. Oviedo RJ, Robertson JC, Desai AS. Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair and Endoscopic Component Separation: Outcomes. JSLS.
2017 Jul-Sep. 21 (3):[Medline]. [Full Text].

17. Gonzalez A, Escobar E, Romero R, Walker G, Mejias J, Gallas M, et al. Robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair: a multicenter
evaluation of clinical outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar. 31 (3):1342-1349. [Medline].

18. Chen YJ, Huynh D, Nguyen S, Chin E, Divino C, Zhang L. Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of small-sized
ventral hernias. Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar. 31 (3):1275-1279. [Medline].

19. Amato G, Romano G, Agrusa A, Canu GL, Gulotta E, Erdas E, et al. Tentacle-shaped mesh for fixation-free repair of umbilical
hernias. Hernia. 2019 Aug. 23 (4):801-807. [Medline]. [Full Text].

20. Shankar DA, Itani KMF, O'Brien WJ, Sanchez VM. Factors Associated With Long-term Outcomes of Umbilical Hernia Repair.
JAMA Surg. 2017 May 1. 152 (5):461-466. [Medline].

21. Donovan K, Denham M, Kuchta K, Denham W, Linn JG, Haggerty SP, et al. Predictors for recurrence after open umbilical hernia
repair in 979 patients. Surgery. 2019 Aug 6. [Medline].

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000990-print 5/5