Skip to content

LAparoscopic Bridging vs anatomic Open Reconstruction for midline abdominal hernia mesh repair

LAparoscopic Bridging vs anatomic Open Reconstruction for midline abdominal hernia mesh repair: Long term functional results - Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN93729016
Enrollment
80
Registered
2012-12-07
Start date
2012-11-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2015-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Surgical mesh repair of incisional and ventral hernias Digestive System Unspecified abdominal hernia

Interventions

The patient will be divided in two groups according to the procedure they will undergo: GROUP R (reconstruction) Planned number of patients will be submitted to a Rives-Stoppa procedure for the repai

Sponsors

University of Genoa (Italy)
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Patients with a midline incisional or a ventral primitive hernia 2. Dimension measured on preoperative CT scan: 2.1. Primary ventral hernia ¡Ý4 d ¡Ü10 cm in its greatest diameter ¡°large¡± according to EHS classification) 2.2. Incisional hernias W2 according to EHS classification 3. Both sex 4. 60 years of age 5. BMI<35Kg/m2 6. Give informed consent for randomization

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Patients with non-midline defects or diastasis recti without herniation 2. Hernia with a previous attempt of mesh repair 3. Hernia is near to a bony salience 4. Patient is classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 or 5 5. Patient has a severe comorbid condition likely to limit survival to 2 years 6. Patient has cirrhosis with or without ascites 7. Patient is under immunosuppressive treatment has received previous bariatric surgery 8. Patient has bowel obstruction, strangulation, peritonitis, or perforation; 9. Presence of local or systemic infection 10. Neuromuscolar disease likely to impair motility (e.g. previous ictus with reliquate) 11. Patients refusing to participate to the study

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Postoperative variations in double leg lowering test (DLL) at 6 and 12 months (as compared to preoperatory)

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. Differences in Trunk raising test (TR test) at 6 and 12 months 2. Differences in Abdominal Wall Strenght (AWS) score at 6 and 12 months 3. Differences in respiratory function tests at 6 and 12 months 4. Differences in intrabdominal pressure (IAP) pre and postoperative 5. Differences in pain assessed with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 6 and 12 months 6. Differences in quality of life using SF-36 at 6 and 12 months

Countries

Italy

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Mar 22, 2026