Suppr超能文献

扩大视野完全腹膜外Rives-Stoppa术(eTEP-RS)与腹腔内置片修补术(IPOM-plus)治疗W1-W2型中线切口疝的疗效比较——单中心经验

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.

作者信息

Taşdelen Halil Afşin

机构信息

Department of General Surgery, Trabzon Kanuni Training and Research Hospital, Kasustu Mah. Topal Osman Cad. No: 7, Yomra, 61040, Trabzon, Turkey.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2023 Apr;37(4):3260-3271. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-09922-x. Epub 2023 Feb 10.

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 cm vs. 27.41 cm, p = 0.84), but the mean mesh area (MMA) and mesh/defect (M/D) ratio were higher in the eTEP-RS group (404.11 cm vs. 267.85 cm, 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.

摘要

背景

eTEP技术是一种最近在腹壁疝手术中受到欢迎的新方法。本研究旨在比较同一外科医生进行的W1和W2中线切开腹壁疝(IAWH)修补术中eTEP-RS和IPOM-plus手术的结果。

方法

回顾性分析2018年11月至2022年4月期间61例行eTEP腹腔镜腹壁修补术患者以及2016年1月至2022年4月期间67例行IPOM-plus手术患者的前瞻性收集数据。128例患者中共有74例接受了W1-W2中线切开疝修补术,其中eTEP-RS组30例,IPOM-plus组44例,纳入本研究。eTEP-RS组平均随访24个月,IPOM-plus组平均随访45个月。

结果

两组在年龄、性别、BMI、ASA评分或当前吸烟情况方面无统计学显著差异。两组间平均缺损面积(MDA,28.17平方厘米对27.41平方厘米,p = 0.84)无差异,但eTEP-RS组的平均补片面积(MMA)和补片/缺损(M/D)比值更高(404.11平方厘米对267.85平方厘米,p < 0.001以及20.96对12.36,p = 0.004)。在eTEP-RS组,住院时间(LOS)(1.48天对2.58天,p < 0.001)以及术后第1天和第10天的疼痛明显更低(p < 0.001),而手术时间明显更长(204.07分钟对88.33分钟,p < 0.001)。术中并发症(p = 0.56)、血清肿形成(p = 0.83)或复发(p = 0.83)方面无显著差异。

结论

对于W1-W2中线IAWH修补术,eTEP-RS技术相较于IPOM-plus方法具有优势,如住院时间更短以及术后早期疼痛更少。然而,eTEP技术的手术时间更长。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验