腹股沟疝气的微创腹膜内网片加(IPOM +)修补术与增强视野完全腹膜外(e-TEP)修补术:系统综述与荟萃分析。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
A C D Rasador, C A B Silveira, M G Fernandez, Y J M Dias, R R H Martin, S Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo
{"title":"腹股沟疝气的微创腹膜内网片加(IPOM +)修补术与增强视野完全腹膜外(e-TEP)修补术:系统综述与荟萃分析。","authors":"A C D Rasador, C A B Silveira, M G Fernandez, Y J M Dias, R R H Martin, S Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-11377-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Following concerns regarding an intraperitoneal mesh, newer ventral hernia repair (VHR) approaches focus on placing the mesh outside of the peritoneal cavity. The e-TEP technique used the retromuscular space and is suggested to be associated with decreased postoperative pain compared to IPOM +. This study aims to compare the IPOM + with the e-TEP for VHR.</p><p><strong>Methods and procedures: </strong>We searched for studies comparing endoscopic IPOM + and e-TEP in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception until September 2023. Outcomes were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after 24 h of surgery and between 7 and 10 days after surgery, operative time, length of stay (LOS), seroma, recurrence, and readmission. RStudio was used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I<sup>2</sup> statistics, with random effect for I<sup>2</sup> > 25%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 149 records, 7 were included, from which 3 were RCTs, 3 were retrospective studies, and 1 was an observational prospective study. 521 patients were included (47% received e-TEP and 53% received IPOM +). 1 study included only robotic surgeries and 6 studies included only laparoscopy. Mean defect width was 3.62 cm ± 0.9 in the e-TEP group and 3.56 cm ± 0.9 in the IPOM + group. IPOM + had higher VAS after 1 day of surgery (MD - 3.35; 95% CI - 6.44; - 0.27; P = 0.033; I<sup>2</sup> = 99%) and between 7 and 10 days after surgery (MD - 3.3; 95% CI - 5.33, - 1.28; P = 0.001; I<sup>2</sup> = 99%). e-TEP repair showed with longer operative time (MD 52.89 min; 95% CI 29.74-76.05; P < 0.001; I<sup>2</sup> = 92%). No differences were seen regarding LOS, seroma, recurrence, and readmission.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The e-TEP repair is associated with lower short-term postoperative pain after VHR compared to IPOM +, but with longer operative time. More RCTs are required to assess these results with long-term follow-up and determine its role in the armamentarium of the abdominal wall surgeon.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally invasive intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus (IPOM +) repair versus enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (e-TEP) repair for ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"A C D Rasador, C A B Silveira, M G Fernandez, Y J M Dias, R R H Martin, S Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00464-024-11377-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Following concerns regarding an intraperitoneal mesh, newer ventral hernia repair (VHR) approaches focus on placing the mesh outside of the peritoneal cavity. The e-TEP technique used the retromuscular space and is suggested to be associated with decreased postoperative pain compared to IPOM +. This study aims to compare the IPOM + with the e-TEP for VHR.</p><p><strong>Methods and procedures: </strong>We searched for studies comparing endoscopic IPOM + and e-TEP in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception until September 2023. Outcomes were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after 24 h of surgery and between 7 and 10 days after surgery, operative time, length of stay (LOS), seroma, recurrence, and readmission. RStudio was used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I<sup>2</sup> statistics, with random effect for I<sup>2</sup> > 25%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 149 records, 7 were included, from which 3 were RCTs, 3 were retrospective studies, and 1 was an observational prospective study. 521 patients were included (47% received e-TEP and 53% received IPOM +). 1 study included only robotic surgeries and 6 studies included only laparoscopy. Mean defect width was 3.62 cm ± 0.9 in the e-TEP group and 3.56 cm ± 0.9 in the IPOM + group. IPOM + had higher VAS after 1 day of surgery (MD - 3.35; 95% CI - 6.44; - 0.27; P = 0.033; I<sup>2</sup> = 99%) and between 7 and 10 days after surgery (MD - 3.3; 95% CI - 5.33, - 1.28; P = 0.001; I<sup>2</sup> = 99%). e-TEP repair showed with longer operative time (MD 52.89 min; 95% CI 29.74-76.05; P < 0.001; I<sup>2</sup> = 92%). No differences were seen regarding LOS, seroma, recurrence, and readmission.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The e-TEP repair is associated with lower short-term postoperative pain after VHR compared to IPOM +, but with longer operative time. More RCTs are required to assess these results with long-term follow-up and determine its role in the armamentarium of the abdominal wall surgeon.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11377-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11377-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:由于腹膜内网片的问题,新的腹股沟疝修补术(VHR)侧重于将网片放置在腹腔外。e-TEP 技术使用后肌间隙,与 IPOM + 相比,术后疼痛减轻。本研究旨在比较 IPOM + 和 e-TEP 对 VHR 的治疗效果:我们在 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 数据库中搜索了从开始到 2023 年 9 月比较内窥镜 IPOM + 和 e-TEP 的研究。研究结果包括手术 24 小时后和术后 7-10 天的视觉模拟量表(VAS)、手术时间、住院时间(LOS)、血清肿、复发和再入院。统计分析使用 RStudio。用I2统计量评估异质性,当I2>25%时采用随机效应:从 149 份记录中,共纳入 7 份,其中 3 份为研究性对照研究,3 份为回顾性研究,1 份为观察性前瞻性研究。共纳入了 521 名患者(47% 接受了 e-TEP,53% 接受了 IPOM +)。1项研究只纳入了机器人手术,6项研究只纳入了腹腔镜手术。e-TEP 组的平均缺损宽度为 3.62 厘米 ± 0.9,IPOM + 组的平均缺损宽度为 3.56 厘米 ± 0.9。手术 1 天后(MD - 3.35; 95% CI - 6.44; - 0.27; P = 0.033; I2 = 99%)和术后 7-10 天之间(MD - 3.3; 95% CI - 5.33, - 1.28; P = 0.001; I2 = 99%),IPOM + 组的 VAS 更高。e-TEP 修复显示手术时间更长(MD 52.89 min; 95% CI 29.74-76.05; P 2 = 92%)。在住院时间、血清肿、复发和再入院方面没有差异:e-TEP修复术与IPOM+相比,VHR术后短期疼痛较轻,但手术时间较长。需要进行更多的 RCT 研究,通过长期随访来评估这些结果,并确定其在腹壁外科医生武器库中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minimally invasive intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus (IPOM +) repair versus enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (e-TEP) repair for ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Following concerns regarding an intraperitoneal mesh, newer ventral hernia repair (VHR) approaches focus on placing the mesh outside of the peritoneal cavity. The e-TEP technique used the retromuscular space and is suggested to be associated with decreased postoperative pain compared to IPOM +. This study aims to compare the IPOM + with the e-TEP for VHR.

Methods and procedures: We searched for studies comparing endoscopic IPOM + and e-TEP in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception until September 2023. Outcomes were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after 24 h of surgery and between 7 and 10 days after surgery, operative time, length of stay (LOS), seroma, recurrence, and readmission. RStudio was used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics, with random effect for I2 > 25%.

Results: From 149 records, 7 were included, from which 3 were RCTs, 3 were retrospective studies, and 1 was an observational prospective study. 521 patients were included (47% received e-TEP and 53% received IPOM +). 1 study included only robotic surgeries and 6 studies included only laparoscopy. Mean defect width was 3.62 cm ± 0.9 in the e-TEP group and 3.56 cm ± 0.9 in the IPOM + group. IPOM + had higher VAS after 1 day of surgery (MD - 3.35; 95% CI - 6.44; - 0.27; P = 0.033; I2 = 99%) and between 7 and 10 days after surgery (MD - 3.3; 95% CI - 5.33, - 1.28; P = 0.001; I2 = 99%). e-TEP repair showed with longer operative time (MD 52.89 min; 95% CI 29.74-76.05; P < 0.001; I2 = 92%). No differences were seen regarding LOS, seroma, recurrence, and readmission.

Conclusion: The e-TEP repair is associated with lower short-term postoperative pain after VHR compared to IPOM +, but with longer operative time. More RCTs are required to assess these results with long-term follow-up and determine its role in the armamentarium of the abdominal wall surgeon.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信