Mp97-17 a comparison of intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair vs. minimally invasive suture repair of inguinal hernias during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy VIII1 Apr 2017MP97-17 A COMPARISON OF INTRAPERITONEAL ONLAY MESH REPAIR VS. MINIMALLY INVASIVE SUTURE REPAIR OF INGUINAL HERNIAS DURING ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY Pedro Recabal, Ricardo G. Alvim, Toshikazu Takeda, Behfar Ehdaie, Jonathan Coleman, and Vincent P. Laudone Pedro RecabalPedro Recabal More articles by this author , Ricardo G. AlvimRicardo G. Alvim More articles by this author , Toshikazu TakedaToshikazu Takeda More articles by this author , Behfar EhdaieBehfar Ehdaie More articles by this author , Jonathan ColemanJonathan Coleman More articles by this author , and Vincent P. LaudoneVincent P. Laudone More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.3061AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We sought to compare the safety and effectiveness of two techniques for minimally invasive inguinal hernia (IH) repair, intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair vs. suture repair, in patients undergoing concurrent robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS In a single tertiary-care institution study, we retrospectively identified patients who underwent RALP and minimally-invasive IH repair concurrently from 2010 to 2015. IH were repaired using either an IPOM or a running suture. We assessed the impact of the IH repair technique on perioperative outcomes, 90-day complications, and IH recurrence. RESULTS Of 2,239 patients undergoing RALP during the study period, 51 patients (2.3%) underwent concurrent minimally invasive IH repair; 28 underwent IPOM repair, and 23 underwent suture repair. The proportion of patients with previous ipsilateral IH repair was higher in the IPOM group. We found no evidence of a significant difference in age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative physical exam findings, postoperative pain, or overall 90-day complication rates between the two groups. Operative time and length of hospitalization were significantly shorter in the IPOM group. Postoperative complications requiring intervention (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) were more frequent in the suture group (p=0.03). The IH recurrence rate was lower in the IPOM group by a clinically relevant but not statistically significant difference (4% vs. 9%; p=0.58) CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing RALP and IH repair, IPOM repair is feasible, and may be associated with better perioperative outcomes and safety profile than suture repair. The effectiveness of IPOM repair was superior but not significantly. A prospective comparison against the gold-standard technique is warranted. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e1309-e1310 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Pedro Recabal More articles by this author Ricardo G. Alvim More articles by this author Toshikazu Takeda More articles by this author Behfar Ehdaie More articles by this author Jonathan Coleman More articles by this author Vincent P. Laudone More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...