Zaporožskij Medicinskij Žurnal (Apr 2024)

Comparison between intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair with closure of fascial defect (IPOM plus) and intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) for ventral hernias

  • H. O. Havrylov,
  • O. V. Shulyarenko,
  • M. O. Yosypenko

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1210.2024.2.297664
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 26, no. 2
pp. 123 – 126

Abstract

Read online

Aim. To evaluate the intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair with closure of fascial defect (IPOM plus) versus intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) for ventral hernias (VHs). Materials and methods. A total of 89 patients with VHs with a defect between 3–12 cm who underwent a surgery from 2018 to 2023 years were enrolled in this study. All of them were randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1 included 45 patients after intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair with closure of fascial defect (IPOM plus), Group 2 – 44 patients after intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM). The distribution of patients by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hernia type (primary VH, incisional hernia), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was studied. Results. The differences in sex, mean age, patient distribution based on hernia type, BMI, ASA score and hernia orifice size were not statistically significant between the two groups. Therefore, both groups were comparable. The operative time in minutes was 73.17 ± 7.43 in Group 1 and 70.93 ± 8.84 in Group 2 (not statistically significant). The pain score 12 hours after surgery was 5.24 ± 0.60 in Group 1 comparing to 5.02 ± 0.45 in Group 2 (not statistically significant). The pain score 8 days after surgery was 2.88 ± 0.31 in Group 1 comparing to 2.75 ± 0.43 in Group 2 (not statistically significant). There was no significant difference concerning the incidence of early complications between the two groups. 41 (91.11 %) patients of Group 1 and 40 (90.9 %) patients of Group 2 were examined during a 22-month follow-up period. No complications were noted. Conclusions. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair provides satisfactory results in terms of safety and efficacy. Thus, IPOM plus repair is safe, feasible and offers possible advantages over the standard IPOM technique as reported in the literature. Poor outcomes described in the literature are probably related to independent variables such as mesh and suture types as well as closure technique.

Keywords