Endoscopic retromuscular technique (eTEP) vs conventional laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair with defect closure (IPOM +) for midline hernias. A case–control study

Luque, Juan Bellido; Rosado, Juan Carlos Gómez; Luque, A Bellido; Menchero, J Gómez; Grau, J. M. Suárez; Matamoros, I Sanchez; Muñoz, Ángel Sánchez-Anguita; Mompeán, F Oliva; Morales-Conde, Salvador

doi:10.1007/s10029-021-02373-0

Cited by 38 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the subgroup analysis, 5 studies (410 patients) reported the seroma outcome (Fig. 3b) [14,15,17,20,21]. We found that there was no statistically significant difference between patients who undergone IPOM versus e-TEP for the seroma outcome (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.47-3.72).…”

Section: Seromamentioning

confidence: 72%

“…In a total of 11 studies with 2320 patients, 1353 patients who underwent minimally invasive VHR with intraperitoneal mesh placement and 967 patients who underwent minimally invasive VHR with extraperitoneal mesh placement were included in the qualitative synthesis and quantitative synthesis (Fig. 1) [10,11,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. All patients had similar baseline characteristics (Table 1).…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the subgroup analysis, 5 studies (410 patients) reported the surgical site infection outcome (Fig. 3a) [14,15,17,20,21]. A total of 3 studies reported that patients in both groups did not experience any surgical site infection and were therefore excluded from the analysis.…”

Section: Surgical Site Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hematoma outcome was reported in 10 studies (2257 patients) (Fig. 2c) [10,11,[14][15][16][17][18][20][21][22]. A total of 4 studies reported that patients in both groups did not experience any hematoma and were therefore excluded from the analysis.…”

Section: Hematomamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total 8 studies (866 patients) reported readmission rates (Fig. 2d) [14,15,[17][18][19][20][21][22]. A total of 1 study reported that patients in both groups were not readmitted during the course of follow-up and were therefore excluded from the analysis.…”

Section: Readmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yeow

Wijerathne

Lomanto

2021

Hernia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The ideal location for mesh placement in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) is still up for debate. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) to evaluate the outcomes of patients who received intraperitoneal mesh versus those that received extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive VHR. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus from inception to May 3, 2021. We selected studies comparing intraperitoneal mesh versus extraperitoneal mesh placement in minimally invasive VHR. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence. A subgroup analysis was conducted for a subset of studies comparing patients who have undergone intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus extended totally extraperitoneal approach (e-TEP). Results A total of 11 studies (2320 patients) were identified. We found no statistically significant difference between patients who received intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh for outcomes of SSI, seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence [(RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60-4.27), (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.68-2.81), (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.45-3.72), (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69-2.86), and (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.22-6.63), respectively]. The subgroup analysis had findings similar to the overall analysis. Conclusion Based on short-term results, extraperitoneal mesh does not appear to be superior to intraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. The choice of mesh location should be based on the current evidence, surgeon, and center experience as well as individualized to each patient.

show abstract

Section: Seromamentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surgical Site Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hematomamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Readmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yeow

Wijerathne

Lomanto

2021

Hernia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

No difference in outcomes between large- and small-pore meshes in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial investigating open retromuscular meshplasty for incisional hernia repair

Kroh

Zufacher

Eickhoff

et al. 2023

Langenbecks Arch Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design A randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter clinical trial with a parallel group design was initiated in eight surgical centers to compare a large-pore polypropylene mesh (Ultrapro®) to a small-pore polypropylene mesh (Premilene®) within a standardized retromuscular meshplasty for incisional hernia repair. Methods Between 2004 and 2006, patients with a fascial defect with a minimum diameter of 4 cm after vertical midline laparotomy were recruited for the trial. Patients underwent retromuscular meshplasty with either a large-pore or a small-pore mesh to identify the superiority of the large-pore mesh. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 5 and 21 days and 4, 12, and 24 months after surgery. A clinical examination, a modified short form 36 (SF-36®), a daily activity questionnaire, and an ultrasound investigation of the abdominal wall were completed at every follow-up visit. The primary outcome criterion was foreign body sensation at the 12-month visit, and the secondary endpoint criteria were the occurrence of hematoma, seroma, and chronic pain within 24 months postoperatively. Results In 8 centers, 181 patients were included in the study. Neither foreign body sensation within the first year after surgery (27.5% Ultrapro®, 32.2% Premilene®) nor the time until the first occurrence of foreign body sensation within the first year was significantly different between the groups. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no significant differences could be observed. At the 2-year follow-up, recurrences occurred in 5 Ultrapro® patients (5.5%) and 4 Premilene® patients (4.4%). Conclusion Despite considerable differences in theoretical and experimental works, we have not been able to identify differences in surgical or patient-reported outcomes between the use of large- and small-pore meshes for retromuscular incisional hernia repair. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT04961346 (16.06.2021) retrospectively registered.

show abstract

Comparison of extended totally extra peritoneal (eTEP) vs intra peritoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for management of primary and incisional hernia in terms of early outcomes and cost effectiveness—a randomized controlled trial

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endoscopic retromuscular technique (eTEP) vs conventional laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair with defect closure (IPOM +) for midline hernias. A case–control study

Cited by 38 publications

References 11 publications

Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No difference in outcomes between large- and small-pore meshes in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial investigating open retromuscular meshplasty for incisional hernia repair

Comparison of extended totally extra peritoneal (eTEP) vs intra peritoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for management of primary and incisional hernia in terms of early outcomes and cost effectiveness—a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About