Mayank Jain1, Asuri Krishna2, Om Prakash1, Subodh Kumar1, Rajesh Sagar3, Rashmi Ramachandran4, Virinder Kumar Bansal5. 1. Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5026A, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India. 2. Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5026A, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India. dr.asurikrishna@gmail.com. 3. Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 5. Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5026A, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India. drvkbansal@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no randomized controlled trials comparing the eTEP with IPOM repair and this randomized study was designed to compare the two techniques in terms of early pain, cost effectiveness, and quality of life. METHOD: This was a prospective randomized trial with intention to treat analysis. The primary outcome was immediate post-operative pain scores. Operative time, conversions, peri operative morbidity, hospital stay, return to daily activities, incremental cost effectiveness ratio and quality of life (WHO-QOL BREF) were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized equally. Early post-operative pain scores and seroma rates were significantly lower and with a significantly earlier return to activity in eTEP group (p value < 0.05). With negative costs and positive effects, eTEP group was 2.4 times more cost effective. CONCLUSION: eTEP repair is better in terms of lesser early post-operative pain, earlier return to activities and cost effectiveness in small and medium size defects.
BACKGROUND: There are no randomized controlled trials comparing the eTEP with IPOM repair and this randomized study was designed to compare the two techniques in terms of early pain, cost effectiveness, and quality of life. METHOD: This was a prospective randomized trial with intention to treat analysis. The primary outcome was immediate post-operative pain scores. Operative time, conversions, peri operative morbidity, hospital stay, return to daily activities, incremental cost effectiveness ratio and quality of life (WHO-QOL BREF) were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized equally. Early post-operative pain scores and seroma rates were significantly lower and with a significantly earlier return to activity in eTEP group (p value < 0.05). With negative costs and positive effects, eTEP group was 2.4 times more cost effective. CONCLUSION: eTEP repair is better in terms of lesser early post-operative pain, earlier return to activities and cost effectiveness in small and medium size defects.