Background: Abdominal wall hernia repair is among the fundamental procedures in general surgical practice. Subsequent to the advent of minimally invasive repair, there have been efforts to find the most reliable technique, with easily reproducible results that can be practiced by surgeons worldwide. From an analytical point of view, this study aimed to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of two techniques.Materials and methods: A total of 60 participants were divided into two groups of 30 patients: the totally extraperitoneal (TEP) and the extended TEP (eTEP) hernia repair groups. Covariates and outcomes were analyzed using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. The study was carried out at a tertiary postgraduate teaching hospital in the western zone of Maharashtra, Pune, India, by a single surgeon. The operative procedures were as per standard surgical practice for both groups. The study was conducted to understand types of difficulties observed in the early implantation stages and the learning curve of these procedures.Results: Ten percent of the procedures in the TEP group and 6.7% of procedures in the eTEP group required Veress needle use to manage accidental pneumoperitoneum (P=0.64). The mean operative time in the eTEP group was significantly shorter than that of the TEP group (P=0.031).Conclusion: Compared with the TEP approach, eTEP repair is associated with shorter operative times, owing to a shorter learning curve, a wider-angle view, a wider range of motion for instrument manipulation, and an ergonomically superior operative experience.