Ventral ETEP Versus REPA, Comparison of Two Novel Minimally Invasive Techniques for Midline Defects.

Introduction: This report aimed to compare ventral extended vision extraperitoneal (ETEP) and preaponeurotic repair (REPA) techniques in terms of surgical procedure, outcomes, and patient evolution. Methods: This was a retrospective study performed at a tertiary care academic center between 2017 and 2022. All consecutive patients operated on for midline hernias and rectus diastasis using REPA and ETEP were included. Follow-up visits were at 15 days, 30 days, and 6 months postoperative. Age, sex, BMI, American Surgical Anesthesiologic Classification (ASA), surgical time, need for conversion to open surgery, time of stay, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection (SSI), recurrence, and re-interventions were assessed. Results: For the present study, 148 patients were included. From them, 62 patients received the REPA procedure and 86 were operated on using the ETEP technique. REPA average time was 105 minutes (interquartile range [IR] 80-130), and ETEP average time was 120 minutes (RIC 95-285) (p = 0.03). Ambulatory procedures were 32.3% (n = 20) REPA and 20.9% (n = 18) ETEP (p = 0.23). In REPA, the mean time for drain extraction was 11.92 days and 8 days in ETEP (p < 0.001). Seroma incidence was identified in 40.3% (n = 25) of the REPA cases and 5.8% (n = 5) of the ETEP procedures (p = 0.001). In a multivariate analysis for seroma incidence REPA technique was associated with a significant risk of its incidence [odds ratio (OR) 16, 67 95% confidence interval ((CI95) 4.67-59.52), p < 0.001]. Conclusion: REPA and ETEP are safe and reproducible. Both approaches reported short hospitalization times and almost no major complications. We found a longer surgical time in ETEP and a higher incidence of seroma in REPA.