sIPOM vs pIPOM in Incisional Hernia Patients
Medium Terms Outcome of sIPOM vs pIPOM in Patients Affected by Incisional Hernia
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Sampling Method
Study Population
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Incisional Hernia whit length >3 and <12 in width or length (Medium size according to European Hernia Society classification incisional hernias
- Body mass index (BMI) < 35 kg/m2
- Elective surgery setting
- Clean wound field according to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wound classification (Grade I)
Exclusion Criteria:
- Incisional hernia <3 or >12 cm
- Abdominal aortic aneurysm disorders
- Pregnancy or lactation
- Psychiatric illness
- Multifocal hernia defect
- Life expectancy<2 years
- Inflammatory bowel disease
- emergency setting
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
Number of groups / cohorts
Cohorts and Interventions
Group / CohortGroup / Cohort |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
pIPOM Group
Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia repair was performed with closure of fascia with non-absorbable suture (pIPOM)
|
The pneumoperitoneum (12-15 mmHg) was built up with Veres in the Palmer'point.
The primary optical trocar was set in the left upper abdomen, two other trocars were set in the left middle and lower abdomen.
If necessary, adhesiolysis was firstly performed.
The hernia gap was deperitonealized in order to prevent a seroma formation and, if possible, all hernia sac was removed to facilitate the healing of the hernia defect after the laparoscopic suture.
This also included the transection of the ligamentum teres hepatis.
We reduced the intraabdominal pressure to approx.
5 mmHg and measured the hernia gap through an intraperitoneal graduated mark.
The choice of mesh size was done with an overlap of more than 5 cm.
The laparoscopic closure of the hernia defect was performed with non-reabsorbable detached stitches of prolene 1/0 suture at a distance of 1.5 cm from stich to stich using a Reverdin' needle.
The final fixation of the mesh took place with a non-resorbable tacks.
|
|
sIPOM Group
Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia was performed without fascia closure (sIPOM)
|
The pneumoperitoneum (12-15 mmHg) was built up with Veres in the Palmer'point.
The primary optical trocar was set in the left upper abdomen, two other trocars were set in the left middle and lower abdomen.
If necessary, adhesiolysis was firstly performed.
The hernia gap was deperitonealized in order to prevent a seroma formation and, if possible, all hernia sac was removed to facilitate the healing of the hernia defect after the laparoscopic suture.
This also included the transection of the ligamentum teres hepatis.
We reduced the intraabdominal pressure to approx.
5 mmHg and measured the hernia gap through an intraperitoneal graduated mark.
The choice of mesh size was done with an overlap of more than 5 cm.
In sIPOM, the defect was not closed.
The final fixation of the mesh took place with a non-resorbable tacks.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Evaluation of the Hernia Recurrence (HR) postoperatively in pIPOM Group and sIPOM Group
Time Frame: 36 months
|
Hernia Recurrence (HR) in pIPOM and sIPOM, was clinically and ultrasonographically evaluated at outpatient visit.
In details, HR was clinically defined as any visible or palpable ''blowout'' in the abdominal wall.
US evaluation was carried out by a radiologist with 15 years of gastrointestinal US experience.
A RS85 (Samsung Madison Co Ltd., Seoul, Korea) ultrasound with a convex transducer (CA1-7A) was employed.
The ultrasonic criteria of HR were a visible gap within the abdominal wall and/or ''tissue moving through the abdominal wall by Valsalva manoeuvre'' and/or a detectable ''blowout''.
Size and location of all ultrasound detected HR were registered, as well as any other patient's complaint.
In doubtful cases of HR, computerized tomography (CT) was performed.
HR was diagnosed and recorded if clinical criteria and/or ultrasound criteria were fulfilled.
|
36 months
|
|
Evaluation of the Mesh Bulging (MB) rate postoperatively in pIPOM Groups and sIPOM Group
Time Frame: 36 months
|
Mesh Bulging (MB) as any clinically evident protrusion through the hernial defect and opens into the hernial sac causing swelling.
It was as well clinically and ultrasonographically evaluated at outpatient visit.
US evaluation was carried out by a radiologist with 15 years of gastrointestinal US experience.
A RS85 (Samsung Madison Co Ltd., Seoul, Korea) ultrasound with a convex transducer (CA1-7A) was employed.
In doubtful cases of MB, computerized tomography (CT) was performed.
MB was diagnosed and recorded if clinical criteria and/or ultrasound criteria were fulfilled.
|
36 months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Evaluation of the incidence of wound events in pIPOM Group and sIPOM Group
Time Frame: 30 days
|
The classification of wound events was assigned according to the likelihood and degree of wound contamination at the time of the operation, as stated in the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wound classification (superficial, deep or organ space).
Surgical site events were reported according to the Ventral Hernia Working Group definitions.
Actions for wound events were categorized as follows: antibiotics only, bedside wound interventions, percutaneous maneuvers or surgical debridement.
|
30 days
|
|
The evaluation of Quality of Life - Gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) questionnaire in pIPOM Group and sIPOM Group
Time Frame: 36 months
|
The Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) is a validated, 36-item, self-administered questionnaire that addresses 5 domains: upper gastrointestinal symptoms (12 items), lower gastrointestinal symptoms (7 items), physical status (7 items), psychological status (5 items), and social status (5 items).
Each item is quoted from 0 to 4; scores range from 0 to 144, with higher scores indicating better function.
Correct or incorrect allocation was then evaluated.
|
36 months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (ACTUAL)
Study Start
Primary Completion (ACTUAL)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (ACTUAL)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (ACTUAL)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- sIPOM vs pIPOM
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.