Cargando…

Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: The optimal operative treatment for umbilical and epigastric hernia, i.e., primary midline ventral hernia (PMVH), is debatable. The most common techniques are the primary suture and open repair with mesh, while laparoscopic approach using intraperitoneally placed onlay mesh (IPOM) is les...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schjøth-Iversen, Line, Sahakyan, Mushegh A., Lai, Xiaoran, Refsum, Arne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10409826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37553548
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02958-6
_version_ 1785086330719436800
author Schjøth-Iversen, Line
Sahakyan, Mushegh A.
Lai, Xiaoran
Refsum, Arne
author_facet Schjøth-Iversen, Line
Sahakyan, Mushegh A.
Lai, Xiaoran
Refsum, Arne
author_sort Schjøth-Iversen, Line
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal operative treatment for umbilical and epigastric hernia, i.e., primary midline ventral hernia (PMVH), is debatable. The most common techniques are the primary suture and open repair with mesh, while laparoscopic approach using intraperitoneally placed onlay mesh (IPOM) is less frequent. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of IPOM in PMVH. Perioperative results, recurrence, pain, and functional status were studied. METHODS: This single-center prospective cohort study included consecutive patients with PMVH operated between September 2006 and December 2015. Systematic follow-up was conducted 6 months and 2 and 5 years postoperatively. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-four patients underwent PMVH repair. Open repair without mesh, open repair with mesh, and IPOM were performed in 251 (34.9%), 273 (38%), and 195 (27.1%) patients, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, the incidence of postoperative complications was similar except postoperative seroma, which was more frequent after IPOM. The latter was also associated with longer length of stay. Open repair with mesh was associated with significantly lower recurrence compared with open repair without mesh and IPOM (5.2 vs 18.2 vs 13.8%, p=0.001, respectively). No differences were seen between the groups in terms of visual analog scale used for registering postoperative pain. These observations persisted after applying propensity score matching. In the multivariable analysis, open repair without mesh and IPOM significantly correlated with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In PMVH, open repair with mesh is associated with lower recurrence compared with open repair without mesh and IPOM. Pain, postoperative complications (except for seroma), and functional status are similar. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-023-02958-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10409826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104098262023-08-10 Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study Schjøth-Iversen, Line Sahakyan, Mushegh A. Lai, Xiaoran Refsum, Arne Langenbecks Arch Surg Research BACKGROUND: The optimal operative treatment for umbilical and epigastric hernia, i.e., primary midline ventral hernia (PMVH), is debatable. The most common techniques are the primary suture and open repair with mesh, while laparoscopic approach using intraperitoneally placed onlay mesh (IPOM) is less frequent. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of IPOM in PMVH. Perioperative results, recurrence, pain, and functional status were studied. METHODS: This single-center prospective cohort study included consecutive patients with PMVH operated between September 2006 and December 2015. Systematic follow-up was conducted 6 months and 2 and 5 years postoperatively. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-four patients underwent PMVH repair. Open repair without mesh, open repair with mesh, and IPOM were performed in 251 (34.9%), 273 (38%), and 195 (27.1%) patients, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, the incidence of postoperative complications was similar except postoperative seroma, which was more frequent after IPOM. The latter was also associated with longer length of stay. Open repair with mesh was associated with significantly lower recurrence compared with open repair without mesh and IPOM (5.2 vs 18.2 vs 13.8%, p=0.001, respectively). No differences were seen between the groups in terms of visual analog scale used for registering postoperative pain. These observations persisted after applying propensity score matching. In the multivariable analysis, open repair without mesh and IPOM significantly correlated with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In PMVH, open repair with mesh is associated with lower recurrence compared with open repair without mesh and IPOM. Pain, postoperative complications (except for seroma), and functional status are similar. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-023-02958-6. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-08-08 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10409826/ /pubmed/37553548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02958-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Schjøth-Iversen, Line
Sahakyan, Mushegh A.
Lai, Xiaoran
Refsum, Arne
Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study
title Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study
title_full Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study
title_fullStr Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study
title_short Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study
title_sort laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10409826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37553548
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02958-6
work_keys_str_mv AT schjøthiversenline laparoscopicvsopenrepairforprimarymidlineventralherniaaprospectivecohortstudy
AT sahakyanmushegha laparoscopicvsopenrepairforprimarymidlineventralherniaaprospectivecohortstudy
AT laixiaoran laparoscopicvsopenrepairforprimarymidlineventralherniaaprospectivecohortstudy
AT refsumarne laparoscopicvsopenrepairforprimarymidlineventralherniaaprospectivecohortstudy