Saleh Tariq, Kastenmeier Andrew, Lak Kathleen, Higgins Rana, Goldblatt Matthew, Tan Wen Hui
Medical College of Wisconsin Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive and Gastrointestinal Surgery, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd. HUB, 6Th Floor, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2025 Jan;39(1):604-613. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11319-3. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
The extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair has several theoretical advantages over the traditional intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernias, including the use of less expensive non-barrier coated mesh and avoiding complications of intraperitoneal mesh. However, one area in need of further investigation is cost and clinical comparisons following robotic eTEP with IPOM.
A retrospective matched cohort study was conducted of patients with midline ventral hernias undergoing robotic eTEP or IPOM at a single academic institution from November 2019-August 2023. Patients were matched based on demographics, hernia defect size, and whether they underwent concomitant procedures. Primary outcomes included supply costs. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of stay, complications, recurrence, and inpatient opioid utilization.
In total, 88 matched patients were included: 44 IPOM and 44 eTEP. Mean age was 57 years, BMI 35 kg/m, and 54.5% were male. Hernia size was similar for both groups: 25 [6-73] cm for the IPOMs vs 40 [14-68] cm for eTEPs (p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in total supply costs between IPOMs and eTEPs: $2338 [2021-3249] vs $2082 [1619-3394] (p = 0.5) respectively. Mean operative time was significantly lower for IPOMs 159.6 ± 57.8 min vs 198.0 ± 67.1 (p = 0.006), while the average length of stay was significantly longer for IPOMs: 1.7 ± 1.2 days vs 1.2 ± 1.3 days (p = 0.021). Total inpatient MME utilized was greater for IPOM: 61 [36-102] vs 29 [10-64] MME (p = 0.003). Postoperative complications and recurrence rate were similar.
There is no difference in total supply costs between patients undergoing robotic IPOM and eTEP repairs for midline ventral hernias. Though this study did find significant differences in total inpatient MME utilized and length of stay, it is debatable whether these are clinically significant. Further research is needed to determine appropriate indications for eTEP over IPOM.
对于腹疝,与传统的腹膜内补片植入修补术(IPOM)相比,扩大完全腹膜外(eTEP)修补术具有若干理论优势,包括使用成本较低的无涂层补片以及避免腹膜内补片的并发症。然而,一个需要进一步研究的领域是机器人辅助eTEP与IPOM术后的成本和临床比较。
对2019年11月至2023年8月在单一学术机构接受机器人辅助eTEP或IPOM治疗的中线腹疝患者进行回顾性匹配队列研究。根据人口统计学、疝缺损大小以及是否进行了同期手术对患者进行匹配。主要结局包括耗材成本。次要结局包括手术时间、住院时间、并发症、复发率以及住院期间阿片类药物的使用情况。
总共纳入了88例匹配患者:44例行IPOM,44例行eTEP。平均年龄为57岁,体重指数为35kg/m²,54.5%为男性。两组的疝大小相似:IPOM组为25[6 - 73]cm,eTEP组为40[14 - 68]cm(p = 0.21)。IPOM组和eTEP组的总耗材成本无显著差异:分别为2338[2021 - 3249]美元和2082[1619 - 3394]美元(p = 0.5)。IPOM组的平均手术时间显著更短,为159.6±57.8分钟,而eTEP组为198.0±67.1分钟(p = 0.006),同时IPOM组的平均住院时间显著更长:1.7±1.2天,而eTEP组为1.2±1.3天(p = 0.021)。IPOM组住院期间使用的总吗啡毫克当量更高:61[36 - 102],而eTEP组为29[10 - 64]吗啡毫克当量(p = 0.003)。术后并发症和复发率相似。
接受机器人辅助IPOM和eTEP修补中线腹疝的患者在总耗材成本上没有差异。尽管本研究确实发现住院期间使用的总吗啡毫克当量和住院时间存在显著差异,但这些差异是否具有临床意义仍存在争议。需要进一步研究以确定eTEP相对于IPOM的合适适应证。