Minimally Invasive Extended Totally Extraperitoneal Versus Transabdominal Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Mesh Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery for ventral hernia repair (MIS-VHR) with mesh in retromuscular plane can be performed by either transabdominally (TA-RM) or via enhanced view totally extraperitoneal approach (eTEP). Although both techniques offer the mesh extension in the best anatomical space, closure of hernia defect, avoidance of traumatic fixation, the superiority of one approach over another is not established. This systematic review and meta-analysis were set up to analyze safety and efficacy of eTEP in comparison with TA-RM. Materials and Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework was used as guideline to conduct systematic search of literature. Studies that provided comparative data of MIS-VHR using eTEP versus TA-RM were identified. Primary outcomes were major complications. These were defined as grade III–IV according to Clavien–Dindo classification. Secondary outcomes included: surgical site infection (SSI) rates, seroma rates, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), minor complications (Clavien–Dindo grade I–II), intraoperative complications, recurrence rate, postoperative ileus, duration of surgery, postoperative pain. Random- and fixed-effects models of statistical analysis were used. Risk difference (RD) was computated for binary outcomes (major and minor complications, SSI, seroma, SSOPI, recurrence, ileus) with 95% confidence intervals. I 2 test was used to assess statistical heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Newcastle–Ottawa framework. Results: There were 3 observational studies that enrolled 370 participants. In the eTEP group there were 166 patients and, in the TA-RM group there were 204 patients. There was no significant RD with regard to major complications (RD −0.02 [−0.06 to 0.02], test for overall effect: Z = 0.86 [ P = .39]). There was no significant RD in occurrence of minor complications, SSI, seroma, SSOPI, recurrence, ileus. Conclusions: Both eTEP and TA-RM were found to have equal safety profile. Further high-quality studies evaluating patient reported outcomes and late recurrence may be useful. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023429160.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".