Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Ventral ETEP Versus REPA, Comparison of Two Novel Minimally Invasive Techniques for Midline Defects.
Signorini, Franco; Soria, Belen; Montechiari, Digby; Rossi, Micaela; Obeide, Lucio; Rossini, Alejandro.
Afiliación
  • Signorini F; General Surgery Department, Bariatric Surgery Program, Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
  • Soria B; General Surgery Department, Bariatric Surgery Program, Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
  • Montechiari D; General Surgery Department, Bariatric Surgery Program, Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
  • Rossi M; General Surgery Department, Bariatric Surgery Program, Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
  • Obeide L; General Surgery Department, Bariatric Surgery Program, Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
  • Rossini A; General Surgery Department, Bariatric Surgery Program, Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A ; 34(7): 633-638, 2024 Jul.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38900688
ABSTRACT

Introduction:

This report aimed to compare ventral extended vision extraperitoneal (ETEP) and preaponeurotic repair (REPA) techniques in terms of surgical procedure, outcomes, and patient evolution.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study performed at a tertiary care academic center between 2017 and 2022. All consecutive patients operated on for midline hernias and rectus diastasis using REPA and ETEP were included. Follow-up visits were at 15 days, 30 days, and 6 months postoperative. Age, sex, BMI, American Surgical Anesthesiologic Classification (ASA), surgical time, need for conversion to open surgery, time of stay, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection (SSI), recurrence, and re-interventions were assessed.

Results:

For the present study, 148 patients were included. From them, 62 patients received the REPA procedure and 86 were operated on using the ETEP technique. REPA average time was 105 minutes (interquartile range [IR] 80-130), and ETEP average time was 120 minutes (RIC 95-285) (p = 0.03). Ambulatory procedures were 32.3% (n = 20) REPA and 20.9% (n = 18) ETEP (p = 0.23). In REPA, the mean time for drain extraction was 11.92 days and 8 days in ETEP (p < 0.001). Seroma incidence was identified in 40.3% (n = 25) of the REPA cases and 5.8% (n = 5) of the ETEP procedures (p = 0.001). In a multivariate analysis for seroma incidence REPA technique was associated with a significant risk of its incidence [odds ratio (OR) 16, 67 95% confidence interval ((CI95) 4.67-59.52), p < 0.001].

Conclusion:

REPA and ETEP are safe and reproducible. Both approaches reported short hospitalization times and almost no major complications. We found a longer surgical time in ETEP and a higher incidence of seroma in REPA.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Herniorrafia Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Argentina Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Herniorrafia Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Argentina Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos