ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Long-term outcomes of robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) ventral hernia repair: a propensity-matched analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe robotic platform enables both intra- and extraperitoneal minimally invasive approaches to ventral hernia repair (VHR). Previous trials comparing intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) to enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) techniques have reported mainly short-term outcomes. We aim to report long-term outcomes comparing these approaches.
methodsThe Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was queried for adults who underwent elective, clean VHR for defects ≤ 7 cm in width. Included patients had permanent synthetic mesh implanted and achieved fascial closure by either robotic IPOM (r-IPOM) or robotic eTEP (r-eTEP). Exclusion criteria included less than 3 years follow-up, presence of a stoma, or concomitant procedure(s) performed at time of VHR. Propensity score matching (PSM) based on pre-defined variables was used to compare quality of life, surgical site occurrences, readmissions, and reoperations between groups.
resultsA total of 504 patients were identified. After PSM, 183 r-IPOM patients were matched to 183 r-eTEP patients. The r-IPOM group had smaller hernia width (3 cm vs. 5 cm; p < 0.001), implanted smaller mesh (12 × 15 cm vs. 17 × 25 cm; p < 0.001), lower drain use (1% vs. 15%; p < 0.001), fewer reoperations (n = 2 vs. n = 12), and no transversus abdominis myofascial releases (0% vs. 28%; p < 0.001). The r-IPOM arm had significantly shorter operative times (33% vs. 81% for ≥ 2 h; p < 0.001) and length of stay (0 vs. 1 days; p < 0.001). There were no differences in wound complications. There was no difference in clinical or radiographic recurrence rates; however, more patients reported bulging in the eTEP group at years 3 and 5. No significant difference was observed in hernia-specific quality-of-life scores.
conclusionsRobotic eTEPs are associated with higher rates of patient-reported bulging and reoperation compared with r-IPOM without difference in clinical recurrence. The clinical significance of this is unclear and warrants further evaluation with more robust long-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42429785What 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.