ORIGINAL RESEARCH
J. Abdom. Wall Surg.
Volume 4 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/jaws.2025.14176
This article is part of the Special IssueMinimally Invasive Repair of Ventral and Incisional Hernias (ipom, e-TEP, v-TAPP, MILOS, etc)View all 7 articles
Comparison of Minimally Invasive Retromuscular Repair Using the Enhanced-View Totally Extraperitoneal (eTEP) Approach vs. Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM) in Ventral Hernia Repair
- 1Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
- 2Department of Surgery, Faculty of medicine, Burapha university, Chonburi, Thailand
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) technique has been widely used for ventral hernia repair; however, concerns regarding mesh-related complications have led to the development of alternative approaches. The enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) technique has emerged as a promising alternative, offering improved anatomical restoration and reduced postoperative morbidity. This study compares the clinical outcomes of eTEP and IPOM for ventral hernia repair.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral centre in Thailand. Patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using either eTEP or IPOM between January 2016 and December 2021 were included. Demographic data, hernia characteristics, perioperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analysed. Statistical comparisons were performed using parametric and nonparametric tests, with a significance threshold of p < 0.05.Results: A total of 70 patients were included, with 32 undergoing eTEP and 38 undergoing IPOM. Both groups were comparable in baseline characteristics, with most cases classified as incisional hernias. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the eTEP group (360 vs. 240 minutes, p < 0.001).Subgroup analysis showed significantly lower postoperative pain scores at 12 and 24 hours in the eTEP-RS and eTEP-TAR groups compared to the IPOM group (p < 0.001). The mean VAS scores at 12 hours were 4 (eTEP-RS), 3 (eTEP-TAR), and 7.5 (IPOM), while at 24 hours, they decreased to 2 (eTEP-RS), 2 (eTEP-TAR), and 4 (IPOM). Complication rates were comparable between groups; however, minor bowel injury was reported in some IPOM cases. The one-year recurrence rate was 3.1% for eTEP and 7.9% for IPOM (p=0.620) , increasing to 6.2% and 15.8% at two years, respectively (p=0.275).Laparoscopic eTEP is a safe and effective alternative to IPOM for medium to large ventral hernias, demonstrating lower postoperative pain and recurrence rates. However, its technical complexity and longer operative time highlight the importance of careful patient selection and surgical expertise.Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these findings and optimise clinical outcomes.
Keywords: eTEP, enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal, ventral hernia repair, retromuscular repair, IPOM
Received: 08 Dec 2024; Accepted: 03 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Anusitviwat, Chewathanakornkul, Yolsuriyanwong, Mahattanobon, Laohawiriyakamol and Wangkulangkul. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Yaninee Anusitviwat, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand
Piyanun Wangkulangkul, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.