Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39548010›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025

Minimally invasive intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus (IPOM +) repair versus enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (e-TEP) repair for ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A C D Rasador, C A B Silveira, M G Fernandez, Y J M Dias, R R H Martin, S Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

A C D RasadorBahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Dom João VI Avenue, 275, Salvador, BA, 40290-000, Brazil. acdrasador@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1844-5599
C A B SilveiraBahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Dom João VI Avenue, 275, Salvador, BA, 40290-000, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2428-0620
M G FernandezBahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Dom João VI Avenue, 275, Salvador, BA, 40290-000, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1122-5489
Y J M DiasUniversity of Missouri, 5000 Holmes St, Kansas 64110, Brookings Dr., Columbia, MO, 63130, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8640-8346
R R H MartinEndocrine Surgery Department, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brooklin Avenue, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9704-2466
S Mazzola Poli de FigueiredoDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2986-8164

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFollowing concerns regarding an intraperitoneal mesh, newer ventral hernia repair (VHR) approaches focus on placing the mesh outside of the peritoneal cavity. The e-TEP technique used the retromuscular space and is suggested to be associated with decreased postoperative pain compared to IPOM +. This study aims to compare the IPOM + with the e-TEP for VHR. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We searched for studies comparing endoscopic IPOM + and e-TEP in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception until September 2023. Outcomes were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after 24 h of surgery and between 7 and 10 days after surgery, operative time, length of stay (LOS), seroma, recurrence, and readmission. RStudio was used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I

resultsFrom 149 records, 7 were included, from which 3 were RCTs, 3 were retrospective studies, and 1 was an observational prospective study. 521 patients were included (47% received e-TEP and 53% received IPOM +). 1 study included only robotic surgeries and 6 studies included only laparoscopy. Mean defect width was 3.62 cm ± 0.9 in the e-TEP group and 3.56 cm ± 0.9 in the IPOM + group. IPOM + had higher VAS after 1 day of surgery (MD - 3.35; 95% CI - 6.44; - 0.27; P = 0.033; I

conclusionThe e-TEP repair is associated with lower short-term postoperative pain after VHR compared to IPOM +, but with longer operative time. More RCTs are required to assess these results with long-term follow-up and determine its role in the armamentarium of the abdominal wall surgeon.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopySurgical MeshHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative PainRobotic Surgical ProceduresEnhanced-view totally extraperitonealE-TEPIPOM +IPOM-plus

Identifiers

PMID39548010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.