Cargando…

Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia

To compare outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair of ventral hernia (VH). A retrospective selection of 104 patients who underwent VH repair (50 and 54 in the SIL-TES and IPOM group...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Tingfeng, Tang, Rui, Meng, Xiangzhen, Zhang, Yizhong, Huang, Liangliang, Zhang, Aili, Wu, Weidong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9213286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35426604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01288-4
_version_ 1784730808612814848
author Wang, Tingfeng
Tang, Rui
Meng, Xiangzhen
Zhang, Yizhong
Huang, Liangliang
Zhang, Aili
Wu, Weidong
author_facet Wang, Tingfeng
Tang, Rui
Meng, Xiangzhen
Zhang, Yizhong
Huang, Liangliang
Zhang, Aili
Wu, Weidong
author_sort Wang, Tingfeng
collection PubMed
description To compare outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair of ventral hernia (VH). A retrospective selection of 104 patients who underwent VH repair (50 and 54 in the SIL-TES and IPOM groups, respectively) was made. Patient data were collected, and quality of life was evaluated using Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) 1 month and 3 months after surgery. There were no significant differences in sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, defect size, mesh area, estimated blood loss, and complication rate between the groups. Age was lower, body mass index was higher, prevalence of primary VH was significantly higher (p < 0.0001), and pain was less at 24 and 48 h post procedure (p < 0.0001) in the SIL-TES group. Drainage placement was more (p < 0.0001), operation time was shorter (p = 0.012), and hospitalization duration and total hospitalization cost were greater in the IPOM group than that in SIL-TES group (8.3 ± 0.3 vs 4.3 ± 0.4 days, p < 0.0001; $7126.9 ± 141.4 vs $2937.3 ± 58.3, p < 0.0001, respectively). Pain and movement limitation scores evaluated by CCS were significantly worse at 1 month (4.93 ± 0.28 vs 1.75 ± 0.28: p < 0.0001; 2.52 ± 0.24 vs 1.15 ± 0.18: p < 0.0001, respectively) and 3 months (4.32 ± 0.37 vs 0.9 ± 0.29: p < 0.0001; 2.06 ± 0.25 vs 0.69 ± 0.11: p < 0.0001, respectively) in IPOM group, compared with the according scores in SIL-TES group. There was no readmission within 30 days and no hernia recurrence at mean follow-up of 12 months. SIL-TES mesh repair is safe and effective and is superior to IPOM repair.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9213286
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92132862022-06-23 Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia Wang, Tingfeng Tang, Rui Meng, Xiangzhen Zhang, Yizhong Huang, Liangliang Zhang, Aili Wu, Weidong Updates Surg Original Article To compare outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair of ventral hernia (VH). A retrospective selection of 104 patients who underwent VH repair (50 and 54 in the SIL-TES and IPOM groups, respectively) was made. Patient data were collected, and quality of life was evaluated using Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) 1 month and 3 months after surgery. There were no significant differences in sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, defect size, mesh area, estimated blood loss, and complication rate between the groups. Age was lower, body mass index was higher, prevalence of primary VH was significantly higher (p < 0.0001), and pain was less at 24 and 48 h post procedure (p < 0.0001) in the SIL-TES group. Drainage placement was more (p < 0.0001), operation time was shorter (p = 0.012), and hospitalization duration and total hospitalization cost were greater in the IPOM group than that in SIL-TES group (8.3 ± 0.3 vs 4.3 ± 0.4 days, p < 0.0001; $7126.9 ± 141.4 vs $2937.3 ± 58.3, p < 0.0001, respectively). Pain and movement limitation scores evaluated by CCS were significantly worse at 1 month (4.93 ± 0.28 vs 1.75 ± 0.28: p < 0.0001; 2.52 ± 0.24 vs 1.15 ± 0.18: p < 0.0001, respectively) and 3 months (4.32 ± 0.37 vs 0.9 ± 0.29: p < 0.0001; 2.06 ± 0.25 vs 0.69 ± 0.11: p < 0.0001, respectively) in IPOM group, compared with the according scores in SIL-TES group. There was no readmission within 30 days and no hernia recurrence at mean follow-up of 12 months. SIL-TES mesh repair is safe and effective and is superior to IPOM repair. Springer International Publishing 2022-04-15 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9213286/ /pubmed/35426604 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01288-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 Original Article
Wang, Tingfeng
Tang, Rui
Meng, Xiangzhen
Zhang, Yizhong
Huang, Liangliang
Zhang, Aili
Wu, Weidong
Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia
title Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia
title_full Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia
title_fullStr Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia
title_full_unstemmed Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia
title_short Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia
title_sort comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (sil-tes) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (ipom) repair for ventral hernia
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9213286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35426604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01288-4
work_keys_str_mv AT wangtingfeng comparativereviewofoutcomessingleincisionlaparoscopictotalextraperitonealsublaysiltesmeshrepairversuslaparoscopicintraperitonealonlaymeshipomrepairforventralhernia
AT tangrui comparativereviewofoutcomessingleincisionlaparoscopictotalextraperitonealsublaysiltesmeshrepairversuslaparoscopicintraperitonealonlaymeshipomrepairforventralhernia
AT mengxiangzhen comparativereviewofoutcomessingleincisionlaparoscopictotalextraperitonealsublaysiltesmeshrepairversuslaparoscopicintraperitonealonlaymeshipomrepairforventralhernia
AT zhangyizhong comparativereviewofoutcomessingleincisionlaparoscopictotalextraperitonealsublaysiltesmeshrepairversuslaparoscopicintraperitonealonlaymeshipomrepairforventralhernia
AT huangliangliang comparativereviewofoutcomessingleincisionlaparoscopictotalextraperitonealsublaysiltesmeshrepairversuslaparoscopicintraperitonealonlaymeshipomrepairforventralhernia
AT zhangaili comparativereviewofoutcomessingleincisionlaparoscopictotalextraperitonealsublaysiltesmeshrepairversuslaparoscopicintraperitonealonlaymeshipomrepairforventralhernia
AT wuweidong comparativereviewofoutcomessingleincisionlaparoscopictotalextraperitonealsublaysiltesmeshrepairversuslaparoscopicintraperitonealonlaymeshipomrepairforventralhernia