Switching from robotic-assisted extended transabdominal preperitoneal (eTAPP) to totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) hernia repair for umbilical and epigastric hernias
Résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Our study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the robotic-assisted extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair compared to transabdominal preperitoneal (eTAPP) repair with a suprapubic trocar insertion to treat umbilical and epigastric hernias. On a prospectively maintained database, we identified patients who underwent either eTEP or eTAPP for treating umbilical and epigastric hernias. During the study period, 53 patients were included, 32 in the eTEP group and 21 in the eTAPP group. The mean age was 59.0 ± 13.9 years, 45 patients (84.9%) were male, and the mean BMI was 28.0 ± 5.9 kg/m2. Most hernias were umbilical (81.1%) and primary (83.0%). The operative time for eTEP was slightly shorter than for eTAPP (106 ± 43 min vs. 126 ± 74 min, p = 0.232). Postoperatively, only one case of bleeding and one seroma were recorded. No complication occurred during a mean follow-up of 11.3 ± 6.4 months in the eTEP group and 20.5 ± 9.7 months in the eTAPP group. In conclusion, our study showed that the eTEP with suprapubic approach was safe and feasible in the treatment of epigastric and umbilical hernias. According to our experience, shorter operative time, integrity of the posterior layers and increased overlap size are the main surgical reasons of switching from eTAPP to eTEP.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Switching from robotic-assisted extended transabdominal preperitoneal (eTAPP) to totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) hernia repair for umbilical and epigastric hernias
- Date Crossref
- 20/01/2024
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.