Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜下经腹外斜肌腱膜下修补术/肌后修补术与腹腔内补片植入修补术治疗腹疝的比较

Comparison of Laparoscopic eTEP-RS/TAR and IPOM Techniques for Ventral Hernia Repair.

作者信息

Anusitviwat Yaninee, Cheewatanakornkul Siripong, Yolsuriyanwong Kamthorn, Mahattanobon Somrit, Laohawiriyakamol Suphawat, Wangkulangkul Piyanun

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand.

出版信息

J Abdom Wall Surg. 2025 Apr 25;4:14176. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2025.14176. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) technique has been widely used for ventral hernia repair; however, concerns regarding mesh-related complications have led to the development of alternative approaches. The enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) technique has emerged as a promising alternative, offering improved anatomical restoration and reduced postoperative morbidity. This study compares the clinical outcomes of eTEP and IPOM for ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral centre in Thailand. Patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using either eTEP or IPOM between January 2016 and December 2021 were included. Demographic data, hernia characteristics, perioperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analysed. Statistical comparisons were performed using parametric and non-parametric tests, with a significance threshold of < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients were included, with 32 undergoing eTEP and 38 undergoing IPOM. Both groups were comparable in baseline characteristics, with most cases classified as incisional hernias. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the eTEP group (360 vs. 240 min, < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed significantly lower postoperative pain scores at 12 and 24 h in the eTEP-RS and eTEP-TAR groups compared to the IPOM group ( < 0.001). The mean VAS scores at 12 h were 4 (eTEP-RS), 3 (eTEP-TAR), and 7.5 (IPOM), while at 24 h, they decreased to 2 (eTEP-RS), 2 (eTEP-TAR), and 4 (IPOM). Complication rates were comparable between groups; however, minor bowel injury was reported in some IPOM cases. The one-year recurrence rate was 3.1% for eTEP and 7.9% for IPOM (p = 0.620), increasing to 6.2% and 15.8% at 2 years, respectively (p = 0.275).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic eTEP is a safe and effective alternative to IPOM for medium to large ventral hernias, demonstrating lower postoperative pain and recurrence rates. However, its technical complexity and longer operative time highlight the importance of careful patient selection and surgical expertise. Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these findings and optimise clinical outcomes.

摘要

背景

腹腔镜腹腔内补片植入修补术(IPOM)已广泛用于腹疝修补;然而,对补片相关并发症的担忧促使了其他方法的发展。增强视野完全腹膜外修补术(eTEP)作为一种有前景的替代方法出现,可实现更好的解剖复位并降低术后发病率。本研究比较了eTEP和IPOM修补腹疝的临床结果。

方法

在泰国一家三级转诊中心进行了一项回顾性队列研究。纳入2016年1月至2021年12月期间接受eTEP或IPOM腹腔镜腹疝修补术的患者。分析人口统计学数据、疝的特征、围手术期变量和术后结果。使用参数检验和非参数检验进行统计学比较,显著性阈值为<0.05。

结果

共纳入70例患者,其中32例行eTEP,38例行IPOM。两组基线特征具有可比性,大多数病例为切口疝。eTEP组的平均手术时间显著更长(360分钟对240分钟,<0.001)。亚组分析显示,与IPOM组相比,eTEP-RS组和eTEP-TAR组在术后12小时和24小时的疼痛评分显著更低(<0.001)。12小时时的平均视觉模拟评分(VAS)分别为4(eTEP-RS)、3(eTEP-TAR)和7.5(IPOM),而在24小时时,分别降至2(eTEP-RS)、2(eTEP-TAR)和4(IPOM)。两组并发症发生率相当;然而,一些IPOM病例报告有小肠轻微损伤。eTEP的一年复发率为3.1%,IPOM为7.9%(p = 0.620),两年时分别升至6.2%和15.8%(p = 0.275)。

结论

对于中大型腹疝,腹腔镜eTEP是IPOM的一种安全有效的替代方法,术后疼痛和复发率更低。然而,其技术复杂性和更长的手术时间凸显了谨慎选择患者和手术专业技能的重要性。需要进一步开展更大样本量的前瞻性研究来验证这些发现并优化临床结果。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验