search
Back to results

Laparoscopic IPOM Plus vs. eTEP Trial

Primary Purpose

Incisional Hernia of Midline of Abdomen

Status
Recruiting
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Russian Federation
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Lap IPOM plus
eTEP
Sponsored by
City Clinical Hospital No.1 named after N.I. Pirogov
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Incisional Hernia of Midline of Abdomen focused on measuring incisional ventral hernia, IPOM, eTEP, pain

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • midline incisional hernia
  • defect width 2-6 cm
  • ASA I-II class
  • Elective hernia repair
  • Considered eligible for minimally invasive ventral hernia repair
  • Able to give informed consent
  • Able to tolerate general anesthesia

Exclusion Criteria:

  • primary ventral herna
  • lateral hernia with/without midline
  • defect width more than 6 cm
  • refuse to give informed consent
  • prior mesh placement in the retrorectus space

Sites / Locations

  • Clinical City Hospital #1 named after N.I. PirogovRecruiting

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh plus ventral hernia repair

Extended-view totally extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair

Arm Description

Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh plus repair will be used to perform a minimally invasive ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh placement and suturing hernia defect.

Extended-view totally extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair will be used to perform minimally invasive ventral hernia repair with retrorectus mesh placement

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

pain on postoperative day 1
Pain score will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The mean pain score is calculated between pain values at rest and on coughing. Participants verbally requested to rate their pain : "Rate your pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain)". 0 point is the minimum and 10 point is the maximum. The higher the score, the more severe the pain.

Secondary Outcome Measures

pain on postoperative days 7 and 30
Pain score will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The mean pain score is calculated between pain values at rest and on physical activity. Participants verbally requested to rate their pain : "Rate your pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain)". 0 point is the minimum and 10 point is the maximum. The higher the score, the more severe the pain.
number of participants with chronic pain
Persisted pain in surgical site more than 90 days after surgery. Pain score will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Participants verbally requested to rate their pain : "Rate your pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain)". 0 point is the minimum and 10 point is the maximum. The higher the score, the more severe the pain.
length of stay
From date of hospital admission until discharge. The length of hospital stay (days)
postoperative complications
Number of participants with postoperative complications, evaluated by Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications from Dindo et al.
analgetic consumption
Consumption of analgesics during the first 48 hours after surgery
pain 6 hours after surgery
Pain score will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The mean pain score is calculated between pain values at rest and on coughing. Participants verbally requested to rate their pain : "Rate your pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain)". 0 point is the minimum and 10 point is the maximum. The higher the score, the more severe the pain.

Full Information

First Posted
August 30, 2022
Last Updated
March 14, 2023
Sponsor
City Clinical Hospital No.1 named after N.I. Pirogov
Collaborators
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT05528107
Brief Title
Laparoscopic IPOM Plus vs. eTEP Trial
Official Title
Comparison of Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM Plus) and Extended Totally Extraperitoneal (eTEP) Repair for Incisional Hernia - a Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
March 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Recruiting
Study Start Date
February 14, 2023 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
December 2023 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
March 2024 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
City Clinical Hospital No.1 named after N.I. Pirogov
Collaborators
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The survey will compare primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM plus) and extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair for incisional hernia. The research hypothesis is the following: patients who underwent eTEP repair may experience 30% less pain, assessed on the NRS-11 scale by the end of postoperative day 1, compared with IPOM plus procedure
Detailed Description
The use of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of patients with incisional ventral hernias has significant advantages over open surgery. According to the current guidelines, the optimal technique for IPOM repair is a combination of suturing hernia defect and implantation an intraperitoneal anti-adhesive coated mesh prosthesis - the so-called "IPOM plus" technology (R.Bittner et al., 2019). The development of laparoscopic surgery has led to the new minimally invasive technique for ventral hernia repair - extended-view totally extraperitoneal plasty (eTEP) (I. Belyansky et al., 2018). An important advantage of eTEP is the non-fixation technique of implant placement due to correct positioning compared to the need for combined fixation for IPOM or IPOM plus, which probably affects on the level of postoperative pain in the early postoperative period. The results of the first RCT comparing IPOM and eTEP ventral hernia repair were recently published (Mayank J. et al., 2022). It was demonstrated the benefits of eTEP repair in several aspects: less pain in the early postoperative period, as well as a faster return to physical activity and lower intervention costs. However, a significant limitation of this RCT is the analysis of interventions in a mixed group of patients with primary ventral and incisional hernias, as well as the use of IPOM procedure without suturing the hernia defect. The sample size was determined based on the above hypothesis regarding the primary point of the study. Considering trial of Asencio F. et al. (2009) in a group of patients with incisional ventral hernias, the level of pain at the end of the first postoperative day after IPOM repair was 4.76 according to the VAS (visual analog scale) with a standard deviation of 1.975. Assuming α (type I error rate) 0.05, β 0.20, it would need a total sample size of 60 patients. Taking into account the probability of loss of patients in the evaluation of long-term results up to 20%, 72 patients will be required (36 patients per group). Taking into account the inconsistency of the literature data on the level of pain in the early postoperative period after IPOM procedure for incisional ventral hernia repair, as well as the established primary point of the study, the investigators plan an additional calculation with correction of the sample size after evaluation intermediate results upon reaching 50% of enrolled patients of the initially established.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Incisional Hernia of Midline of Abdomen
Keywords
incisional ventral hernia, IPOM, eTEP, pain

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Participant
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
72 (Anticipated)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh plus ventral hernia repair
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh plus repair will be used to perform a minimally invasive ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh placement and suturing hernia defect.
Arm Title
Extended-view totally extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Extended-view totally extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair will be used to perform minimally invasive ventral hernia repair with retrorectus mesh placement
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Lap IPOM plus
Other Intervention Name(s)
Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh plus ventral hernia repair
Intervention Description
Participants will undergo Lap IPOM plus repair according to the assigned treatment arm.
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
eTEP
Other Intervention Name(s)
Extended-view totally extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair
Intervention Description
Participants will undergo eTEP repair according to the assigned treatment arm.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
pain on postoperative day 1
Description
Pain score will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The mean pain score is calculated between pain values at rest and on coughing. Participants verbally requested to rate their pain : "Rate your pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain)". 0 point is the minimum and 10 point is the maximum. The higher the score, the more severe the pain.
Time Frame
postoperative day 1
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
pain on postoperative days 7 and 30
Description
Pain score will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The mean pain score is calculated between pain values at rest and on physical activity. Participants verbally requested to rate their pain : "Rate your pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain)". 0 point is the minimum and 10 point is the maximum. The higher the score, the more severe the pain.
Time Frame
postoperative 7 (±1) and 30 (±3) days
Title
number of participants with chronic pain
Description
Persisted pain in surgical site more than 90 days after surgery. Pain score will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Participants verbally requested to rate their pain : "Rate your pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain)". 0 point is the minimum and 10 point is the maximum. The higher the score, the more severe the pain.
Time Frame
postoperative day 100 (±5 days)
Title
length of stay
Description
From date of hospital admission until discharge. The length of hospital stay (days)
Time Frame
30 days after surgery
Title
postoperative complications
Description
Number of participants with postoperative complications, evaluated by Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications from Dindo et al.
Time Frame
30 days after surgery
Title
analgetic consumption
Description
Consumption of analgesics during the first 48 hours after surgery
Time Frame
48 hours after surgery
Title
pain 6 hours after surgery
Description
Pain score will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The mean pain score is calculated between pain values at rest and on coughing. Participants verbally requested to rate their pain : "Rate your pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain)". 0 point is the minimum and 10 point is the maximum. The higher the score, the more severe the pain.
Time Frame
6 hours (± 1 hour) after surgery

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: midline incisional hernia defect width 2-6 cm ASA I-II class Elective hernia repair Considered eligible for minimally invasive ventral hernia repair Able to give informed consent Able to tolerate general anesthesia Exclusion Criteria: primary ventral herna lateral hernia with/without midline defect width more than 6 cm refuse to give informed consent prior mesh placement in the retrorectus space
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Alexander Sazhin, professor
Phone
+79163904180
Email
sazhin-av@yandex.ru
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Georgy Ivakhov, PhD
Phone
+79262844224
Email
ivakhovsurg@yandex.ru
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Clinical City Hospital #1 named after N.I. Pirogov
City
Moscow
Country
Russian Federation
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Georgy Ivakhov, Prof
Phone
+79264578568
Email
ivakhovsurg@gmail.com

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No

Learn more about this trial

Laparoscopic IPOM Plus vs. eTEP Trial

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs