Comparative Outcomes Of Laparoscopic IPOM Vs. IPOM-Plus Hernioplasty: A Study From A Tertiary Care Center
Keywords:
Ventral hernia, IPOM, IPOM-Plus, laparoscopic hernioplasty, recurrence, seroma formationAbstract
Background: Ventral hernia, a common surgical condition, can significantly impair quality of life. Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM) hernioplasty has become a preferred technique due to reduced postoperative pain, lower wound infection rates, and faster recovery. However, concerns such as seroma formation and recurrence limit its efficacy. A modified technique, IPOM-Plus, which includes fascial defect closure before mesh placement, has shown promise in addressing these limitations, but comparative evidence remains limited.
Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted at Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute over two years. A total of 22 patients aged 30–70 years with midline ventral hernias were randomized into two groups. Group 1 underwent IPOM-Plus with fascial defect closure, while Group 2 underwent traditional IPOM without defect closure. Outcomes were assessed through clinical evaluations, ultrasonography, and patient-reported satisfaction. Statistical analysis included t-tests, chi-square tests, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and p-values <0.05 were considered significant.
Results: Seroma formation was significantly lower in the IPOM-Plus group (9%) compared to the IPOM group (45%, p = 0.03). No recurrences were observed in the IPOM-Plus group, while 27% of patients in the IPOM group experienced recurrences (p = 0.02). Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed superior recurrence-free survival in IPOM-Plus (log-rank test, p = 0.01). Operative time was slightly longer for IPOM-Plus (94 ± 12 vs. 84 ± 10 minutes, p = 0.04), but hospital stay was comparable (p = 0.52). Patient satisfaction was higher in IPOM-Plus (82% vs. 55%, p = 0.08).
Conclusion: IPOM-Plus demonstrates superior outcomes, including lower recurrence and seroma rates, compared to traditional IPOM, with comparable recovery times. These findings support the routine use of IPOM-Plus in selected patients to improve ventral hernia repair outcomes
Downloads
References
Huang X, Shao X, Cheng T, Li J. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) with fascial repair (IPOM-plus) for ventral and incisional hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia. 2024;28(1):12-19. DOI:10.1007/s10029-024-02983-4.
Tien TPD, Ngoc HN. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus (IPOM-plus) with mobilizing the urinary bladder for suprapubic incisional hernia repair: A case report. Cureus. 2024;16(3):e31589. DOI:10.7759/cureus.31589.
Umar M, Yasin F, Abaid A, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) hernioplasty with laparoscopic IPOM-Plus: Our initial experience in Pakistan. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e30102. DOI:10.7759/cureus.30102.
Vasudevan R. Exploring hernioplasty techniques: A systematic review of IPOM-Plus versus IPOM in ventral hernia repair. International Medical Journal. 2024;28(4):45-51.
Rosati S, Pepe F, Giaccone M, Gambali E. Comparison of quality of life and recurrence rate after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: A comparative study of IPOM vs IPOM-Plus. British Journal of Surgery. 2024;111(Supplement_5):e122.
Krishnakumar R. Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Repair (IPOM) versus Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Repair with Closure of Fascia Defect (IPOM Plus) for Ventral Hernias. Dharan Medical Journal. 2024;32(2):13-18.
Bindal V, Pandey D, Gupta S. Laparoscopic intra-peritoneal onlay mesh plus versus robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal for primary ventral hernias: Our technique and outcomes. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery. 2024;20(3):145-152. DOI:10.4103/jmas.jmas_2234_24.
Köckerling F, Simon T, Hukauf M, et al. The importance of surgical technique for the outcome of incisional hernia repair. World J Surg. 2018;42(6):1661-1671. doi:10.1007/s00268-017-4465-5
Berger D, Köckerling F. Current understanding and treatment of incisional hernia. Front Surg. 2019;6:32. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2019.00032
Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov. 2005;12(1):63-69. doi:10.1177/155335060501200109
Clarke MG, Katkhouda N. Intraperitoneal onlay mesh hernia repair: a 7-year experience. Hernia. 2015;19(1):21-26. doi:10.1007/s10029-013-1156-3
Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, et al. Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia. 2009;13(4):407-414. doi:10.1007/s10029-009-0518-x
Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K. Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet. 2003;362(9395):1561-1571. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14746-0
Suwa K, Ichikawa T, Kawahara K, et al. Long-term outcomes of defect closure in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2020;13(3):371-377. doi:10.1111/ases.12715
Schumpelick V, Conze J, Klinge U. Preperitoneal mesh repair of ventral hernias: results, complications, and reoperation. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80(1):30-41. doi:10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70498-7
Bittner R, Bain K, Bansal VK, et al. Update of guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(11):3251-3272. doi:10.1007/s00464-019-07012-
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
