RESUMEN
Background Primary ventral hernias are abnormal protrusions of abdominal viscera through the areas of weakness in the fascia of the abdominal wall. The aim of this study was to compare the benefits and complications, and the overall outcome in the Extended-View Totally Extraperitoneal Rives-Stoppa (eTEP-RS) repair versus Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM Plus) repair in the management of primary ventral hernias. Methods After obtaining institutional ethical committee clearance, this prospective comparative study between IPOM Plus and eTEP-RS was conducted in a tertiary care hospital from December 2020 to January 2022. A total of 50 patients presenting with primary ventral hernias were included in the study, of whom 25 underwent IPOM Plus and 25 underwent eTEP-RS repairs. Group selection was done by simple randomization using the lottery method. Patients more than 18 years of age with primary ventral hernias presenting with a hernial defect width less than 6 cm, consenting to the study, were included in the study. Patients who did not fulfill the inclusion criteria, strangulated/obstructed hernias, recurrent/incisional hernias, connective tissue disorders, skin infections, enterocutaneous fistulas, pregnancy, morbid obesity, and parastomal hernias were exclusion factors. Results The mean intraoperative duration in the eTEP-RS group (192.3 ± 16.20 min) was significantly higher than in the IPOM Plus group (102.6 ± 16.78min, p=0.001). The mean duration of hospital stay in the IPOM Plus group (5.9 ± 2.19 days) was longer than in the eTEP-RS group (4.6 ± 3.17 days, p=0.02). The mean postoperative pain scores, from the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), on days 1, 7, and 90 were 3.2 ± 1.11, 2.64 ± 1.11, and 1.68 ± 1.46 in the IPOM Plus group and 1.84 ± 0.688, 0.76 ± 0.66 and 0.08 ± 0.40 in the eTEP-RS group, respectively (p=0.001). Conclusion Despite being a technically easy procedure requiring less intraoperative time, IPOM Plus had several disadvantages, such as increased postoperative pain, longer duration of hospital stays, higher chances of wound site seromas, and higher rates of postoperative paralytic ileus. On the other hand, eTEP-RS was a more challenging procedure requiring more intraoperative time; however, it had several advantages: less postoperative pain, less duration of hospital stay, early recovery, and fewer chances of seromas and paralytic ileus. However, more robust data is required to compare and validate the differences between both procedures' short- and long-term outcomes.
