Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media, as well as to allow video information to be shared for both marketing, analytics and editorial purposes.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

 Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus intraperitoneal onlay Mesh (IPOM) for ventral hernia repair – an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Save article
View saved research
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from ¥17,985 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bittner R, Bain K, Bansal VK, Berrevoet F, Bingener-Casey J, Chen D et al (2019) Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B. Surg Endosc 33(11):3511–3549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06908-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Beldi G, Wagner M, Bruegger LE, Kurmann A, Candinas D (2011) Mesh shrinkage and pain in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial comparing suture versus tack mesh fixation. Surg Endosc 25(3):749–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1246-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eriksen JR, Bisgaard T, Assaadzadeh S, Jorgensen LN, Rosenberg J (2011) Randomized clinical trial of fibrin sealant versus titanium tacks for mesh fixation in laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair. Br J Surg 98(11):1537–1545. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eriksen JR, Poornoroozy P, Jørgensen LN, Jacobsen B, Friis-Andersen HU, Rosenberg J (2009) Pain, quality of life and recovery after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 13(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-008-0414-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ben-Haim M, Kuriansky J, Tal R, Zmora O, Mintz Y, Rosin D et al (2002) Pitfalls and complications with laparoscopic intraperitoneal expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch repair of postoperative ventral hernia. Surg Endosc 16(5):785–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-9126-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Prasad P, Tantia O, Patle NM, Khanna S, Sen B (2011) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a comparative study of transabdominal preperitoneal versus intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21(6):477–483. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2010.0572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang PG, Tung LK (2016) Preperitoneal onlay mesh repair for ventral abdominal wall and incisional hernia: a novel technique. Asian J Endosc Surg 9(4):344–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.12295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaushik K, Srivastava V, Datta Sai Subramanyam A, Kishore R, Pratap A, Ansari MA (2023) A comparative study on outcomes and quality of life changes following ventral transabdominal preperitoneal (Ventral-TAPP) and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM)-plus repair for ventral hernia. Cureus 15(7):e42222. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.42222

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gokcal F, Morrison S, Kudsi OY (2019) Short-term comparison between preperitoneal and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement in robotic ventral hernia repair. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 23(5):957–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01946-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kudsi OY, Bou-Ayash N, Chang K, Gokcal F (2021) Robotic repair of lateral incisional hernias using intraperitoneal onlay, preperitoneal, and retromuscular mesh placement: a comparison of mid-term results and surgical technique. Eur Surg Acta Chir Austriaca 53(4):188–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-020-00634-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 12:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Warren JA, Love M (2018) Incisional hernia repair: minimally invasive approaches. Surg Clin North Am 98(3):537–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2018.01.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hilling DE, Koppert LB, Keijzer R, Stassen LPS, Oei IH (2009) Laparoscopic correction of umbilical hernias using a transabdominal preperitoneal approach: results of a pilot study. Surg Endosc 23(8):1740–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0177-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Muysoms FE, Bontinck J, Pletinckx P (2011) Complications of mesh devices for intraperitoneal umbilical hernia repair: a word of caution. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 15(4):463–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-010-0692-x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI (1960) Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg Chic Ill 133(4):378–382. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.133.4.378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zinther NB, Wara P, Friis-Andersen H (2010) Intraperitoneal onlay mesh: an experimental study of adhesion formation in a sheep model. Hernia 14(3):283–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-009-0622-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Franklin ME, Dorman JP, Glass JL, Balli JE, Gonzalez JJ (1998) Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8(4):294–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Langenbach MR, Enz D (2020) Mesh fixation in open IPOM procedure with tackers or sutures? A randomized clinical trial with preliminary results. Hernia 24(1):79–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01991-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Warren JA, Love M, Cobb WS, Beffa LR, Couto FJ, Hancock BH et al (2020) Factors affecting salvage rate of infected prosthetic mesh. Am J Surg 220(3):751–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.01.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F (2016) Long-term Recurrence and Complications Associated With Elective Incisional Hernia Repair. JAMA 316(15):1575. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.15217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Halm JA, De Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2007) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 31(2):423–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-006-0317-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Petro CC, Montelione KC, Zolin SJ, Renton DB, Yunis JP, Meara MP et al (2023) Robotic eTEP versus IPOM evaluation: the REVEAL multicenter randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 37(3):2143–2153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09722-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Petro CC, Maskal SM, Renton DB, Yunis JP, Meara MP, Diaz K, et al (2023) Robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal vs intraperitoneal onlay mesh evaluation: 1-year exploratory outcomes of the REVEAL randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Surg 237(4):614:620. https://doi.org/10.1097/XCS.0000000000000784

  29. Sarela AI (2006) Controversies in laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia. J Minimal Access Surg 2(1):7–11. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.25670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, Van Den Tol MP, De Lange DCD, Braaksma MMJ, IJzermans JNM, et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 10;343(6):392–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200008103430603

  31. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years’ experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 238(3):391–400. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000086662.49499.ab

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Sharbaugh ME, Patel PB, Zaman JA, Ata A, Feustel P, Singh K et al (2021) Robotic ventral hernia repair: a safe and durable approach. Hernia 25(2):305–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02074-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kennedy M, Barrera K, Akcelik A, Constable Y, Smith M, Chung P et al (2018) Robotic TAPP ventral hernia repair: early lessons learned at an inner city safety net hospital. JSLS. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00070

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Turcu F, Arnăutu O, Copaescu C (2019) Adhesiolysis-related challenges for laparoscopic procedures after ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh. Chirurgia 114(1):39. https://doi.org/10.21614/chirurgia.114.1.39

  35. Smith MJ (2017) Hernia surgeons embrace sublay repairs, but loyalty to IPOM remains. General Surgery News

  36. Pompeu BF, Soares GAR, SIlva MP, Farias AGP, Silva ROS, Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo S (2024) Suture versus tacks in minimally invasive transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 38(9):4858–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11138-6

  37. Megas IF, Benzing C, Winter A, Raakow J, Chopra S, Pratschke J et al (2022) A propensity-score matched analysis of ventral-TAPP vs. laparoscopic IPOM for small and mid-sized ventral hernias. Comparison of perioperative data, surgical outcome, and cost-effectiveness. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 26(6):1521–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02586-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have no sources of funding to declare for this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, St. Joseph’s Hospital – Dignity Health, Phoenix, AZ, 85013, USA

    Ana Caroline D. Rasador, Carlos A. Balthazar da Silveira & Conrad Ballecer

  2. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo

Authors
  1. Ana Caroline D. Rasador
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlos A. Balthazar da Silveira
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Conrad Ballecer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Caroline D. Rasador.

Ethics 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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rasador, A.C.D., da Silveira, C.A.B., Ballecer, C. et al. Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus intraperitoneal onlay Mesh (IPOM) for ventral hernia repair – an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 29, 93 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03271-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03271-5

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Ana Caroline D. Rasador View author profile