Background: In 1999, the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) introduced the SAGES Outcomes Initiative as a way for its members to track their own outcomes. It contains perioperative and postoperative data on nearly 20,000 operations. This report provides a descriptive analysis of the groin hernia database.

Methods: The SAGES Outcomes Initiative database was accessed for all groin hernia cases from September 1999 to February 2005. The data from the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative entries were summarized. These data are purely descriptive and no statistical analysis was done.

Results: The hernia registry contains 1,607 entries, with 1,070 follow-up entries. Males comprised 85% of patients, 63% were employed, 62% had at least one comorbidity, with 84% ASA class I or II. Primary, unilateral hernia accounted for 86% of cases, whereas 14% were recurrent, 11% bilateral, 6% incarcerated, and 3% required emergency repair. The operating surgeon was the attending surgeon in 83% of cases. Anesthetic techniques were general anesthesia in 74% of cases, regional in 7%, and local in 34%, with only 16% of cases local only. Most patients had symptomatic hernias and symptoms were improved in more than 95% of patients. Most repairs were open, although 45% were endoscopic. The most frequently cited postoperative event was significant bruising (6%), with more than 99% of complications being class I or II. More than 95% of patients were able to return to work by the first postoperative visit. Patients who underwent endoscopic repair were reported to have fewer days of narcotic use than patients undergoing open repairs (0 vs 3).

Conclusions: First analysis of the SAGES Outcomes Initiative groin hernia database demonstrates that (a) this is one of the largest prospective; voluntary hernia registries; (b) missing data are infrequent; and (c) the data are similar to published data from national, mandatory registries and randomized trials. Although the SAGES Outcomes Initiative is a voluntary registry, initially designed for surgeon self-assessment, and it therefore has the potential for methodological concerns inherent to voluntary registries, the findings from this first analysis are encouraging. Efforts are ongoing to simplify data entry (PDA), refine data parameters, increase surgeon participation, and determine the role of data audit and thereby the potential for clinical research.