Peritoneal bridging versus fascial closure in laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay ventral hernia mesh repair: a randomized clinical trial. Issue 4 (28th May 2020)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Peritoneal bridging versus fascial closure in laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay ventral hernia mesh repair: a randomized clinical trial. Issue 4 (28th May 2020)
- Main Title:
- Peritoneal bridging versus fascial closure in laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay ventral hernia mesh repair: a randomized clinical trial
- Authors:
- Ali, F.
Wallin, G.
Fathalla, B.
Sandblom, G. - Abstract:
- Abstract : Background: Many patients develop seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. It was hypothesized that leaving the hernial sac in situ may cause this complication. Methods: In this patient‐ and outcome assessor‐blinded, parallel‐design single‐centre trial, patients undergoing laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair were randomized (1 : 1) to either conventional fascial closure or peritoneal bridging. The primary endpoint was the incidence of seroma 12 months after index surgery detected by CT, evaluated in an intention‐to‐treat analysis. Results: Between September 2017 and May 2018, 62 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 25 were randomized to conventional closure and 25 to peritoneal bridging. At 3 months, one patient was lost to follow‐up in the conventional and peritoneal bridging groups respectively. No seroma was detected at 6 or 12 months in either group. The prevalence of clinical seroma was four of 25 (16 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 30) per cent) versus none of 25 patients in the conventional fascial closure and peritoneal bridging groups respectively at 1 month after surgery ( P = 0·110), and two of 24 (8 (0 to 19) per cent) versus none of 25 at 3 months ( P = 0·235). There were no significant differences between the groups in other postoperative complications (one of 25 versus 0 of 25), rate of recurrent hernia within 1 year (none in either group) or postoperative pain. Conclusion: Conventional fascial closure andAbstract : Background: Many patients develop seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. It was hypothesized that leaving the hernial sac in situ may cause this complication. Methods: In this patient‐ and outcome assessor‐blinded, parallel‐design single‐centre trial, patients undergoing laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair were randomized (1 : 1) to either conventional fascial closure or peritoneal bridging. The primary endpoint was the incidence of seroma 12 months after index surgery detected by CT, evaluated in an intention‐to‐treat analysis. Results: Between September 2017 and May 2018, 62 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 25 were randomized to conventional closure and 25 to peritoneal bridging. At 3 months, one patient was lost to follow‐up in the conventional and peritoneal bridging groups respectively. No seroma was detected at 6 or 12 months in either group. The prevalence of clinical seroma was four of 25 (16 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 30) per cent) versus none of 25 patients in the conventional fascial closure and peritoneal bridging groups respectively at 1 month after surgery ( P = 0·110), and two of 24 (8 (0 to 19) per cent) versus none of 25 at 3 months ( P = 0·235). There were no significant differences between the groups in other postoperative complications (one of 25 versus 0 of 25), rate of recurrent hernia within 1 year (none in either group) or postoperative pain. Conclusion: Conventional fascial closure and peritoneal bridging did not differ with regard to seroma formation after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03344575). Abstract : Fifty patients were enrolled and randomized to laparoscopic hernia repair with conventional fascial closure or a peritoneal bridging approach. Follow‐up by CT at 12 months (primary endpoint) revealed no seroma in either group, but seroma was detected clinically in the early postoperative period after 1 month (4 of 25 versus 0 of 25 patients in fascial closure and peritoneal bridging groups respectively) and 3 months (2 of 24 versus 0 of 25). The results suggest that peritoneal bridging is a safe and feasible alternative to conventional fascial closure, although larger studies are required to confirm this. No difference in seroma formation, complications or rate of recurrent hernia. Abstract : Antecedentes: Tras la reparación laparoscópica de una eventración muchos pacientes desarrollan seromas. Se planteó la hipótesis de que dejar el saco herniario in situ puede ser causa de esta complicación. Métodos: En este ensayo clínico unicéntrico, de grupos paralelos y ciego para el evaluador, se aleatorizaron (1:1) los pacientes en los que se realizó una reparación laparoscópica de una eventración mediante la colocación de una malla intraperitoneal ( intraperitoneal onlay mesh, IPOM) con cierre convencional de la fascia o dejando el saco herniario. La variable principal fue la incidencia de seroma 12 meses después de la cirugía, detectada por tomografía computarizada. Se realizó el análisis por intención de tratamiento. Resultados: Entre septiembre de 2017 y mayo de 2018, de 62 pacientes posibles, 25 se asignaron al grupo de cierre convencional y 25 al grupo en el que se dejaba el saco herniario. A los 6 y 12 meses de seguimiento, se perdieron un paciente de cada grupo. No se detectaron seromas en ninguno de los grupos a los 6 ó 12 meses. La prevalencia de seroma clínico a los 1 y 3 meses fue de 4/25 (16%, i.c. del 95% 2‐30%) versus 0/25 pacientes ( P = 0, 110) y 2/24 (8%, i.c. del 95% 0‐19%) versus 0/25 pacientes ( P = 0, 235) en el grupo de cierre fascial convencional versus el grupo en el que se dejó el saco peritoneal, respectivamente. No hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en otras complicaciones postoperatorias (1/25 versus 0/25), tasa de recidiva de la hernia al año (ninguna en ambos grupos), dolor postoperatorio o calidad de vida. Conclusión: No hubo diferencias entre el cierre convencional de la fascia o dejando el saco herniario en la formación de un seroma tras la reparación laparoscópica de una eventración. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- BJS open. Volume 4:Issue 4(2020)
- Journal:
- BJS open
- Issue:
- Volume 4:Issue 4(2020)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 4, Issue 4 (2020)
- Year:
- 2020
- Volume:
- 4
- Issue:
- 4
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2020-0004-0004-0000
- Page Start:
- 587
- Page End:
- 592
- Publication Date:
- 2020-05-28
- Subjects:
- Surgery -- Periodicals
617.005 - Journal URLs:
- https://academic.oup.com/bjsopen ↗
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bjs5.2017.1.issue-1/issuetoc ↗
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1002/bjs5.50305 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 2474-9842
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 13737.xml