Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus intraperitoneal onlay Mesh (IPOM) for ventral hernia repair - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 39954156
- DOI: 10.1007/s10029-025-03271-5
Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus intraperitoneal onlay Mesh (IPOM) for ventral hernia repair - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Persistent controversy exists regarding the optimal approach for ventral hernia repair (VHR). Considering the concerns regarding the use of intraperitoneal mesh and the increasing use of robotic technology, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) is increasingly being performed. This study aims to compare TAPP and intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) for VHR.
Methods: PubMED, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from inception to April 2024, for studies on patients undergoing VHR, comparing TAPP and IPOM. Outcomes included were intraoperative complications, such as vascular and bowel injury, and postoperative complications (hernia recurrence within 1 year of operation, seroma, hematoma, ileus, urinary retention, small bowel obstruction). Additional outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores after 24 h of surgery.
Results: From 398 records, 8 were included in our pooled analysis, which comprised 7 retrospective cohorts and 1 prospective cohort, totaling 952 patients. 458 (48%) patients underwent laparoscopic VHR and 494 (52%) underwent robotic VHR. Our meta-analysis revealed that TAPP is associated with a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications as a composite outcome (13.9% vs 23.9%; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.48, 0.92; P = 0.013). After performing a subgroup analysis for robotic surgeries only, we found that TAPP also has a lower rate of urinary retention (RR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02, 0.99; P = 0.049) and hematoma compared to IPOM (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.04, 0.95; P = 0.043). No differences were seen between both techniques regarding ileus, hernia recurrence, operative time, seroma, small bowel obstruction, vascular injury, and bowel injury. Subgroup analysis for robotic VHR showed similar results. After performing a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, we also obtained a shorter hospital LOS (MD - 0.56 days; 95% CI - 0.86, - 0.25; p < 0.05) and VAS scores within 24 h of surgery (MD - 1.04; 95% CI - 1.61, - 0.47; p < 0.05) for the TAPP technique.
Conclusions: IPOM is associated with a higher incidence of hematoma, urinary retention, overall early postoperative complications, and potentially longer hospital LOS and higher VAS pain scores within 24 h compared to TAPP. Therefore, the TAPP should be the technique of choice for minimally invasive VHR when feasible; however, considering the availability of resources and surgeon expertise, IPOM might still be considered a viable alternative.
Keywords: IPOM; TAPP; Ventral hernias.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: Ana Caroline Dias Rasador, Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira, and Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo have no conflicts of interest to declare. Conrad Ballecer is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical and Medtronic. Ethical approval: This article doesn’t require ethical approval considering it is a systematic review including studies previously published in a public database. Human and animal rights: This article does not contain any studies directly involving human participants, as it is a review of data already collected in a public database. Informed consent: For this type of study, formal consent was not necessary.
Similar articles
- Robotic transabdominal preperitoneal versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus repair for small to medium primary ventral hernias: a propensity-matched cohort study.J Robot Surg. 2025 Sep 26;19(1):637. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02817-0.J Robot Surg. 2025.PMID: 41006789
- 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.Surg Endosc. 2025 Feb;39(2):1251-1260. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11377-7. Epub 2024 Nov 15.Surg Endosc. 2025.PMID: 39548010
- "Comparative safety and efficacy of robotic TAPP and IPOM techniques in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Short-term Outcomes".Hernia. 2025 Aug 19;29(1):255. doi: 10.1007/s10029-025-03454-0.Hernia. 2025.PMID: 40828228Free PMC article.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on operative time, postoperative complications, and 12-24-month recurrence.J Robot Surg. 2025 Dec 8;20(1):63. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-03010-z.J Robot Surg. 2025.PMID: 41359075
- Short-term comparison between preperitoneal and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement in robotic ventral hernia repair.Hernia. 2019 Oct;23(5):957-967. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01946-4. Epub 2019 Apr 9.Hernia. 2019.PMID: 30968286
Cited by
- Laparosocpic "Intraperitoneal Underlay Mesh"-Plus: A Viable Approach for Incisional-Ventral Hernia Repair.J Abdom Wall Surg. 2025 Jun 18;4:14459. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2025.14459. eCollection 2025.J Abdom Wall Surg. 2025.PMID: 40607178Free PMC article.Review.
- Robotic repair of off-midline abdominal wall hernias: a single institution consecutive case series.Hernia. 2025 Sep 29;29(1):283. doi: 10.1007/s10029-025-03476-8.Hernia. 2025.PMID: 41021101Free PMC article.
- Short-term outcomes of robotic eTEP versus TAPP for ventral hernia repair: insights from a propensity-matched cohort.J Robot Surg. 2025 Jun 14;19(1):292. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02439-6.J Robot Surg. 2025.PMID: 40517208Free PMC article.
- Robotic transabdominal preperitoneal versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus repair for small to medium primary ventral hernias: a propensity-matched cohort study.J Robot Surg. 2025 Sep 26;19(1):637. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02817-0.J Robot Surg. 2025.PMID: 41006789
References
-
- Schlosser KA, Renshaw SM, Tamer RM, Strassels SA, Poulose B (2023) Ventral hernia repair: an increasing burden affecting abdominal core health. Hernia 27(2):415–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02707-6 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Sauerland SWM (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007781.pub2 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Donkor C, Gonzalez A, Gallas M, Helbig M, Weinstein C, Rodriguez J (2017) Current perspectives in robotic hernia repair. Robot Surg Res Rev 4:57–67. https://doi.org/10.2147/RSRR.S101809 - DOI
-
- Heniford TB, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2000) Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair in 407 patients1. J Am Coll Surg 190(6):645–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1072-7515(00)00280-5 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Pereira C, Rai R (2021) Open versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. Cureus 13(12):e20490. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.20490 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous