ArticleJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2025
Comparison of Laparoscopic eTEP-RS/TAR and IPOM Techniques for Ventral Hernia Repair.
Article in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM Plus) and extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP RS) repair for incisional hernia - a randomized clinical trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Trial
- Long-term outcomes of robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) ventral hernia repair: a propensity-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Extended-view totally extraperitoneal repair for ventral hernias: a retrospective analysis of perioperative outcomes and the role of ASA score.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Post-Caesarean and Post-Laparotomy Abdominal Wall Reconstruction (Tummy Tuck) For Aesthetic and Functional Restoration in A Low Resource Setting: A Case Report.CME journal of clinical case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: 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 non-parametric tests, with a significance threshold of 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 min, Conclusion: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.