Comparison of outcomes between onlay and intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus ventral hernia repair: a prospective study

Sachin Kumar; Sanjay Kala; Ramendra K. Jauhari; Rahul Mahadar; Santosh K. Barman

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20253451

Authors

Sachin Kumar Department of General Surgery, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
Sanjay Kala Department of General Surgery, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
Ramendra K. Jauhari Department of General Surgery, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
Rahul Mahadar Department of General Surgery, Jeevanshree Hospital, Dombivali, Maharashtra, India
Santosh K. Barman Department of Community Medicine, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20253451

Keywords:

Ventral hernia, Surgical outcomes, Postoperative complications, Onlay mesh repair, Laparoscopic surgery, Intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) plus

Abstract

Introduction: Ventral hernias are common surgical conditions requiring either open (Onlay) or laparoscopic (Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM) Plus) repair. This study compares their outcomes to guide clinical decision-making.

Methods: A prospective study was conducted at Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur and Jeevanshree Hospital, Maharashtra, randomized 94 patients with ventral hernias (defect size 3-7 cm, age 18-60 years) into Onlay (n=47) or IPOM Plus (n=47) groups. Outcomes included operative time, hospital stay, surgical site infection (SSI), hematoma, seroma, pain (Visual Analog Scale (VAS)), return to activities/work, and recurrence. Data were analyzed using T-tests and chi-square tests (p<0.05).

Results: IPOM plus resulted in longer operative times (94.19±12.34 vs. 53.85±10.56 min, p<0.001), but shorter hospital stays (2.09±0.87 vs. 4.18±1.23 days, p<0.001) and faster return to daily activities (8.34±2.01 vs. 11.40±2.56 days, p<0.001) and work (14.72±3.12 vs. 18.36±3.89 days, p=0.030). The IPOM Plus group had lower rates of hematoma (0% vs. 25.5%, p<0.001), seroma (10.6% vs. 34%, p=0.006), and SSI (4.3% vs. 27.7%, p=0.002). Acute postoperative pain was lower in IPOM plus, while chronic pain and recurrence rates were comparable.

Conclusions: IPOM plus offers reduced complications and faster recovery, despite longer operative times, making it preferable for suitable patients. Recurrence rates are comparable.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Jani K. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus repair for ventral abdominal wall hernias: is there substance to the hype. Mini Invasive Surg. 2018;2:14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2018.08

Palanivelu C, Jani KV, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Madhankumar MV, Malladi VK. Laparoscopic sutured closure with mesh reinforcement of incisional hernias. Hernia. 2007;11(3):223-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-007-0200-0

Bittner R, Bain K, Bansal VK, Berrevoet F, Bingener-Casey J, Chen D, et al. Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(10):3069-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06907-7

Slavu IM, Filipoiu F, Munteanu O, Georgescu S, Georgescu I, Tulin A, et al. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) in the treatment of ventral hernias: technique discussion points. Cureus. 2024;16(5):61199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.61199

Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, Chelala E, et al. Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia. 2009;13(4):407-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-009-0518-x

Clement ND, Abdelatif O, Aftab Z, Aftab Z, Al-Termanini S, Anwar S, et al. A Multi-Center Prospective Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair. J Abdom Wall Surg. 2023;2:11534.

Kudsi OY, Gokcal F, Bou-Ayash N, Crawford AS, Chung SK, Chang K. Learning curve of robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (r-TAPP) ventral hernia repair: a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(3):1825-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08462-6

Köckerling F, Sheen AJ, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Cuccurullo D, Fortelny R, et al. The reality of general surgery training and increased complexity of abdominal wall surgery in Europe: A review of the need for advanced surgical training. Hernia. 2019;23(2):223-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02062-z

Schwarz J, Reinpold W, Bittner R. Endoscopic mini/less open sublay technique (EMILOS)-a new technique for ventral hernia repair. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017;402(1):173-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1522-0

Li J, Wong Y, Wu T. The comparison of eTEP and IPOM in ventral and incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2022;32(2):252-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001035

Rubby S, Rangaswamy P, Sundar P. A prospective study comparing laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair. Int Surg J. 2017 Feb 24;4(2):644-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20164427

Henriksen NA, Montgomery A, Kaufmann R, Berrevoet F, East B, Fischer J, et al. Guidelines for treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias from the European Hernia Society and Americas Hernia Society. Br J Surg. 2020;107(3):171-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11489

Warren JA, Love M. Incisional Hernia Repair: Minimally Invasive Approaches. Surg Clin North Am. 2018;98(3):537-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2018.01.008

Slater NJ, Montgomery A, Berrevoet F, Carbonell AM, Chang A, Franklin M, et al. Criteria for definition of a complex abdominal wall hernia. Hernia. 2014;18(1):7-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1168-6