Introduction Incisional hernias can complicate up to one in four laparotomy procedures, and successful repair remains a significant clinical challenge for surgeons. Recently, the surgical technique of ventral hernia repair (eTEP-RS) has been introduced. Aim To present early results in treating patients with ventral hernia using the eTEP-RS technique and to discuss key technical aspects affecting the safety and efficiency of repair. Material and methods A prospective study of early outcomes was conducted for all ventral hernia patients (hernia orifice between 4 and 8 cm) who underwent eTEP-RS between March 2019 and July 2020. Results As of July 2020, we performed a total of 11 eTEP-RS procedures. The mean duration of the surgery was 204 min (158 to 295). The average size of the treated defect in the transverse dimension was 5.8 cm, and the defect area was 38.5 cm 2 . The average size of the mesh used was 486 cm 2 (280 to 590). After an average follow-up of 7 months (1–17) there was no recurrence or major complication. Based on our initial experiences we present a detailed description of the main aspects of the surgical technique itself, as well as the essential nuances, to enable evaluation of the technique and future popularization. Conclusions The eTEP-RS technique is a safe alternative to open ventral hernia repair and allows for the placement of a large piece of mesh in accordance with current recommendations. Excellent knowledge of the detailed anatomy of the abdominal wall is essential for safe and effective hernia repair.

Introduction Incisional hernias can complicate up to 25% of laparotomies, and successful repair remains a significant clinical challenge for surgeons. Recently, the surgical technique of ventral hernia repair (eTEP-RS) has been introduced. The method was presented relatively recently and continues to evolve. The use of a robotic platform in eTEP-RS resulted in a significant improvement in ergonomics. Therefore, the questions arise as to whether the laparoscopic technique might still be feasible for such long procedures. The objective of this study is to present our early results in the treatment of patients with incisional ventral hernias using eTEP-RS and to discuss key technical aspects. Patients and methods A prospective case-controlled study was conducted for all incisional ventral hernia patients (hernia orifice between 4 and 10 cm) who underwent eTEP-RS between March 2019 and December 2021. Demographic data were recorded; and perioperative and postoperative results were analyzed. ResultsWe performed 34 eTEP-RS procedures. The mean duration of the surgery was 211 min (145-295). The mean width of the defect was 6.8 cm and the defect area was 42.5 cm 2 . The mean mesh size was 498 cm 2 (270-625). After an average follow-up of 16 months (2-30), there was no recurrence or major complication. Conclusions The eTEP-RS is a safe alternative to open ventral hernia repair in selected cases and allows for the placement of a large piece of mesh in accordance with current recommendations, even in non-robotic centers. Excellent knowledge of the detailed anatomy of the abdominal wall is essential for safe and effective hernia repair. Compliance with certain rules of the laparoscopic eTEP-RS facilitates improved ergonomics for this procedure even in non-robotic centers.

Introduction: Despite high prevalence of umbilical hernias an open anterior approach is still frequently performed. Mesh use, although necessary in recurrence prevention, may lead to more frequent surgical site infections, especially in obese patients. Intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) may promote intraperitoneal adhesions. Some of these limitations may be reconciled by transabdominal-preperitoneal repair (TAPP). Aim: To compare the feasibility, safety and efficacy of umbilical TAPP (u-TAPP) with ventral patch repair technique (VPR). Material and methods: The analysis included overweight/obese patients undergoing elective surgery for primary umbilical hernia (22 in VPR, 21 in u-TAPP).Results: There were no differences between groups regarding size of the hernia defect. The mean width of the defect was 26 mm in VPR and 30 mm in u-TAPP (p = 0.185). The operation time was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in VPR (43.1 ±11.6 min) than in u-TAPP (93.2 ±22.3 min). However, in VPR it was possible to place a much smaller area of synthetic mesh than in u-TAPP (34.3 vs. 164.2 cm 2 ; p < 0.001). After 30 days of follow-up, there was no recurrence in any of the groups. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding post-operative pain. Conclusions: TAPP technique in umbilical hernia repair allows for placement of a much larger mesh than an anterior approach surgery, and is closer to current recommendations, especially for patients with additional risk factors, such as obesity or coexistence of diastasis recti. TAPP allows a mesh to be introduced into the preperitoneal space, allowing one to avoid direct contact between the mesh and the intestines. Laparoscopic umbilical TAPP is feasible and safe, but the operation time is longer compared to open methods.