Scholarlink

Background <p>The robotic platform enables both intra- and extraperitoneal minimally invasive approaches to ventral hernia repair (VHR). Previous trials comparing intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) to enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) techniques have reported mainly short-term outcomes. We aim to report long-term outcomes comparing these approaches.</p> Methods <p>The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was queried for adults who underwent elective, clean VHR for defects ≤ 7&#xa0;cm in width. Included patients had permanent synthetic mesh implanted and achieved fascial closure by either robotic IPOM (r-IPOM) or robotic eTEP (r-eTEP). Exclusion criteria included less than 3 years follow-up, presence of a stoma, or concomitant procedure(s) performed at time of VHR. Propensity score matching (PSM) based on pre-defined variables was used to compare quality of life, surgical site occurrences, readmissions, and reoperations between groups.</p> Results <p>A total of 504 patients were identified. After PSM, 183 r-IPOM patients were matched to 183 r-eTEP patients. The r-IPOM group had smaller hernia width (3&#xa0;cm vs. 5&#xa0;cm; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), implanted smaller mesh (12 × 15&#xa0;cm vs. 17 × 25&#xa0;cm; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), lower drain use (1% vs. 15%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), fewer reoperations (<i>n</i> = 2 vs. <i>n</i> = 12), and no transversus abdominis myofascial releases (0% vs. 28%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The r-IPOM arm had significantly shorter operative times (33% vs. 81% for ≥ 2&#xa0;h; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and length of stay (0 vs. 1&#xa0;days; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). There were no differences in wound complications. There was no difference in clinical or radiographic recurrence rates; however, more patients reported bulging in the eTEP group at years 3 and 5. No significant difference was observed in hernia-specific quality-of-life scores.</p> Conclusions <p>Robotic eTEPs are associated with higher rates of patient-reported bulging and reoperation compared with r-IPOM without difference in clinical recurrence. The clinical significance of this is unclear and warrants further evaluation with more robust long-term follow-up.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Long-term outcomes of robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) ventral hernia repair: a propensity-matched analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月10日

查看全文
  • Alvaro C. Carvalho,
  • Erika M. Schmidt,
  • William C. Bennett,
  • Noah X. Tocci,
  • Li-Ching Huang,
  • Kimberly S. Miles,
  • Luciano Tastaldi,
  • Benjamin T. Miller,
  • David M. Krpata,
  • Ajita S. Prabhu,
  • Clayton C. Petro,
  • Lucas R. Beffa

摘要

Background

The robotic platform enables both intra- and extraperitoneal minimally invasive approaches to ventral hernia repair (VHR). Previous trials comparing intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) to enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) techniques have reported mainly short-term outcomes. We aim to report long-term outcomes comparing these approaches.

Methods

The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was queried for adults who underwent elective, clean VHR for defects ≤ 7 cm in width. Included patients had permanent synthetic mesh implanted and achieved fascial closure by either robotic IPOM (r-IPOM) or robotic eTEP (r-eTEP). Exclusion criteria included less than 3 years follow-up, presence of a stoma, or concomitant procedure(s) performed at time of VHR. Propensity score matching (PSM) based on pre-defined variables was used to compare quality of life, surgical site occurrences, readmissions, and reoperations between groups.

Results

A total of 504 patients were identified. After PSM, 183 r-IPOM patients were matched to 183 r-eTEP patients. The r-IPOM group had smaller hernia width (3 cm vs. 5 cm; p < 0.001), implanted smaller mesh (12 × 15 cm vs. 17 × 25 cm; p < 0.001), lower drain use (1% vs. 15%; p < 0.001), fewer reoperations (n = 2 vs. n = 12), and no transversus abdominis myofascial releases (0% vs. 28%; p < 0.001). The r-IPOM arm had significantly shorter operative times (33% vs. 81% for ≥ 2 h; p < 0.001) and length of stay (0 vs. 1 days; p < 0.001). There were no differences in wound complications. There was no difference in clinical or radiographic recurrence rates; however, more patients reported bulging in the eTEP group at years 3 and 5. No significant difference was observed in hernia-specific quality-of-life scores.

Conclusions

Robotic eTEPs are associated with higher rates of patient-reported bulging and reoperation compared with r-IPOM without difference in clinical recurrence. The clinical significance of this is unclear and warrants further evaluation with more robust long-term follow-up.