Hepatobiliary Surgical Unit, Virgen Macarena Hospital, University of Seville Virgen de luján 26, 7º izda, Seville, 41011, Spain.
Gastrointestinal Surgical Department, QuirónSalud Sagrado Corazón Hospital, Seville, Spain.
Hernia. 2024 Nov 27;29(1):34. doi: 10.1007/s10029-024-03186-7.
The aim was to evaluate results in terms of intra and postoperative complications, hospital stay, postoperative pain, functional recovery, aesthetic results and recurrence rate of totally endoscopic retromuscular hernia repair(eTEP-TAR)compared to conventional laparoscopic incisional hernia repair with defect closure(IPOM+)for right subcostal incisional hernias.
Data from consecutive patients requiring conventional minimally invasive subcostal incisional hernia repair collected from January 2014 to December 2018 were compared with patients underwent eTEP from January 2019 to July 2024 in a case-control study.
51 patients in the IPOM + group and 46 in eTEP group were included.Both groups were comparable considering demographic variables.No significant differences were identified in mean defect length (6,6/1,4 vs. 7,5/1,2 cm, p = 0,08) or width(6,3/1,5 vs. 5,9/1,4 cm, p = 0,3).The mean mesh area was significantly bigger in eTEP group(907,9/136,4 vs. 631,5/129,3 cm,p < 0,05)with significant longer surgical time (106,3/22,7 vs. 67,2/15,5 min, p = 0,03).No differences in intraoperative complications were identified.Hospital stay was significantly improved in eTEP group when compared to IPOM + group (33,6/13,8 vs. 61,09/12,2 hours, p = 0,03).Postoperative complications were significantly higher in the IPOM + group due to postoperative ileus (9% vs. 2%,p < 0,05).One recurrence was identified in eTEP group(2%), and 2 recurrences in IPOM + group(3%) with an average follow-up of 20.6+/-10.6 months and 60.6+/-10.6 months respectively. eTEP group showed significantly lower pain on the 1st -7th -30th -90th postoperative days than IPOM + group.Functional recovery was significantly improved in the eTEP group one and six months after surgery.No differences in terms of cosmetic results were identified.
eTEP-TAR for subcostal hernias shows lower postoperative pain and hospital stay with better functional recovery than IPOM+,without differences in recurrence rate and cosmesis result.Postoperative ileus is increased when intraperitoneal mesh is laparoscopically placed. eTEP-TAR in subcostal hernia repair requires significant higher operative time due to its complexity.
本研究旨在评估完全内镜下肌后疝修补术(eTEP-TAR)与传统腹腔镜切口疝修补术(IPOM+)治疗右肋缘下切口疝的术中及术后并发症、住院时间、术后疼痛、功能恢复、美学效果和复发率。
对 2014 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月连续收治的需行传统微创肋缘下切口疝修补术的患者资料进行回顾性分析,并与 2019 年 1 月至 2024 年 7 月行 eTEP 的患者进行病例对照研究。
IPOM+组 51 例,eTEP 组 46 例。两组患者在人口统计学变量方面无显著差异。缺损长度(6cm,6/1.4cm 比 7.5cm,7/1.2cm,p=0.08)或宽度(6cm,6/1.5cm 比 5.9cm,5/1.4cm,p=0.3)无显著差异。eTEP 组的网片面积明显较大(907.9cm2,136.4cm2 比 631.5cm2,129.3cm2,p<0.05),手术时间明显较长(106.3min,22.7 比 67.2min,15.5min,p=0.03)。两组术中并发症无显著差异。与 IPOM+组相比,eTEP 组的住院时间明显缩短(33h,13.8 比 61h,12.2h,p=0.03)。IPOM+组术后并发症较高,主要为术后肠梗阻(9%比 2%,p<0.05)。eTEP 组有 1 例复发(2%),IPOM+组有 2 例复发(3%),平均随访 20.6+/-10.6 个月和 60.6+/-10.6 个月。eTEP 组在术后第 1、7、30、90 天的疼痛明显低于 IPOM+组。术后 1 个月和 6 个月,eTEP 组的功能恢复明显优于 IPOM+组。在美容效果方面无显著差异。
与 IPOM+相比,eTEP-TAR 治疗肋缘下疝可减轻术后疼痛和住院时间,改善功能恢复,且复发率和美容效果无差异。腹腔镜放置腹腔内网片时,术后肠梗阻发生率增加。eTEP-TAR 治疗肋缘下疝的手术时间明显较长,因为其复杂性较高。