IPOM plus versus IPOM standard in incisional hernia repair: results of a prospective multicenter trial

• Published in: Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery Vol. 27; no. 3; pp. 695 - 704
• Main Authors: Pizza, F., D’Antonio, D., Lucido, F. S., Brusciano, L., Mongardini, F. M., Dell’Isola, C., Brillantino, A., Docimo, L., Gambardella, C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Paris Springer Paris 01.06.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Hernia; Hernia, Ventral - surgery; Hernias; Herniorrhaphy - adverse effects; Herniorrhaphy - methods; Humans; Incisional Hernia - surgery; Laparoscopy; Laparoscopy - methods; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; NCT; NCT05712213; Original Article; Quality of Life; Recurrence; Statistical analysis; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects; Wounds; pIPOM; Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair; sIPOM; Hernia recurrence
• ISSN: 1248-9204; 1265-4906; 1248-9204
• DOI: 10.1007/s10029-023-02802-2

Purpose Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is a well-established technique with satisfying outcomes even at long term for the treatment of incisional and ventral hernia. However, the literature debate is still ongoing regarding the preferred surgical technique. Nowadays, two approaches are commonly adopted: the intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (sIPOM) and the intraperitoneal onlay mesh reinforcement with defect closure before mesh placement (pIPOM). The aim of this prospective analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients treated for incisional hernia (IH) with sIPOM and pIPOM after 36 months follow-up in terms of recurrence, quality of life and wound events. Methods Patients receiving pIPOM and sIPOM for IH were actively followed up for 36 months. At the outpatient clinic, hernia recurrence (HR), mesh bulging (MB), quality of life with the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) and wound events were assessed. Results Between January 2015 and January 2019, 98 patients underwent a pIPOM and 89 underwent an sIPOM. At 36 months, nine patients (4 in pIPOM and 5 in sIPOM) experienced an HR, while MB was recorded in four patients in pIPOM and nine in sIPOM. No statistically significant difference could be identified also in terms of final GIQLI score and wound events. Conclusions LVHR with or without fascial closure, also in our study, provides satisfactory results in terms of safety and efficacy. The discordant results in the literature are probably related to independent variables such as the type of mesh, the type of suture and closure technique. Therefore, was the funeral of sIPOM done too early? Study dataset is available on ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05712213