These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of outcomes of the extended-view totally extraperitoneal rives-stoppa (eTEP-RS) and the intraperitoneal onlay mesh with defect closure (IPOM-plus) for W1-W2 midline incisional hernia repair-a single-center experience.
    Author: Taşdelen HA.
    Journal: Surg Endosc; 2023 Apr; 37(4):3260-3271. PubMed ID: 36764936.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The eTEP technique is a new approach that has recently gained popularity in abdominal wall hernia surgery. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the eTEP-RS and IPOM-plus procedures in W1 and W2 midline incisional abdominal wall hernia (IAWH) repairs performed by the same surgeon. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of laparoscopic abdominal wall repairs performed on 61 patients with eTEP between November 2018 and April 2022 and on 67 patients with IPOM-plus between January 2016 and April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 74 out of 128 patients, 30 in the eTEP-RS group and 44 in the IPOM-plus group, who underwent W1-W2 midline incisional hernia repair were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 24 months in the eTEP-RS group and 45 months in the IPOM-plus group. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age, sex, BMI, ASA score, or active smoking. No difference was seen between the two groups in terms of the mean defect area (MDA, 28.17 cm2 vs. 27.41 cm2, p = 0.84), but the mean mesh area (MMA) and mesh/defect (M/D) ratio were higher in the eTEP-RS group (404.11 cm2 vs. 267.85 cm2, p < 0.001 and 20.96 vs. 12.36, p = 0.004). In the eTEP-RS group, the hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.48 days vs. 2.58 days, p < 0.001) and pain on the first and 10th postoperative days were significantly lower (p < 0.001), while the operative time was significantly longer (204.07 min vs. 88.33 min, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of intraoperative complications (p = 0.56), seroma formation (p = 0.83), or recurrence (p = 0.83). CONCLUSION: The eTEP-RS technique has advantages over the IPOM-plus approach, such as a shorter LOS and less early postoperative pain with W1-W2 midline IAWH repair. However, the eTEP technique has a longer operative time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]