Quality of life after end colostomy without mesh and with prophylactic synthetic mesh in sublay position: one-year results of the STOMAMESH trial

Outcomes of loop ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer: A prospective observational multicenter snapshot study from Multidisciplinary Italian Study group for STOmas (MISSTO)

BACKGROUND

Diverting ileostomy is a common procedure in rectal cancer surgery, but it is sometimes associated with a nonnegligible rate of complications. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the incidence and types of stoma-related complications for ileostomy creation after rectal cancer resection. The secondary aims were to report the indications, the technical details, and the efficacy of stoma care provided by ostomy nurses.

METHODS

From 15 February to 31 December 2022, consecutive patients who underwent protective ileostomy after anterior rectal cancer resection were enrolled for prospective data collection at 45 Italian colorectal surgery centers. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate factors that influenced the occurrence of stoma-related complications.

RESULTS

In all, 287 patients were enrolled in the analysis. The short- and long-term postoperative stoma-related morbidity rates were 33.8% and 29.62%, respectively. The most frequent complications were dehydration (17.77%), peristomal skin dermatitis (13.59%), mucocutaneous separation (8.36%), and stoma retraction (4.18%). At the end of follow-up (median time 9 months), the overall stoma closure rate was 83.97% (241 patients), with a median time to stoma closure of 146 days (range 9-483 days). On multivariate analysis, the presence of a stoma nurse was a significant protective factor against stoma-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the creation of a protective ileostomy is associated to a nonnegligible rate of short-term and long-term postoperative stoma-related morbidity, higher than 25%. The most frequent complication is dehydration, and the presence of stoma-specialized nurses seems to be a protective factor for stoma-related complications. Moreover, more than 15% of protective stomas were not closed at the end of follow-up.

Effect of Sublay Preventive Mesh for Terminal Colostomy on Symptoms and Quality of Life in Patients With Parastomal Hernia: A Post Hoc Analysis of the GRECCAR 7 Cohort

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses confirm that the use of a prophylactic mesh does not significantly reduce the parastomal hernia rate. Data about the benefits of these meshes concerning the symptoms of parastomal hernia are lacking in the existing literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a post hoc analysis of the patients presenting parastomal hernia from the GRECCAR 7 (Groupe de recherche sur la chirurgie du cancer du rectum) randomized clinical trials cohort on whether the presence or the absence of the mesh influenced the symptoms, the quality of life, and complications of patients with parastomal hernias.

DESIGN

We studied the parastomal hernia-related symptoms among the 2 groups of the GRECCAR 7 randomized clinical trial, with or without prophylactic mesh at the time of the index surgery.

SETTINGS

Data were retrospectively extracted and analyzed from the GRECCAR 7 database.

PATIENTS

Patients diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the 2 years of the GRECCAR 7 study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Several prospectively collected data about the symptoms were studied among this population. We also studied the average interval between parastomal hernia repair surgery and both index surgery and diagnosis of parastomal hernia.

RESULTS

Among the 199 patients included in the GRECCAR study, 36 patients (35.6%) in the nonmesh group and 33 patients (33.7%) in the mesh group were diagnosed with clinical and/or radiological parastomal hernia at 2-year follow-up, without a statistically significant difference ( p = 0.89). None of the studied symptoms showed any statistically significant difference between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

This study relies on a relatively small number of patients, and although data were prospectively collected, we lacked some details about the categorization of parastomal hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the use of a prosthetic mesh in a sublay position to prevent parastomal hernia in terminal end colostomy patients should no longer be recommended. See Video Abstract .

EFECTO DE LA MALLA PREVENTIVA RETROMUSCULAR PARA COLOSTOMA TERMINAL CON RESPECTO A LOS SNTOMAS Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA EN PACIENTES CON HERNIA PARAESTOMAL UN ANLISIS POSTHOC DE LA COHORTE GRECCAR

ANTECEDENTES:Los recientes metaanálisis y ensayos clínicos aleatorizados confirman que el uso de una malla profiláctica no reduce significativamente la tasa de hernia paraestomal. En la literatura existente faltan datos sobre los beneficios de estas mallas en relación con los síntomas de la hernia paraestomal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis post-hoc de los pacientes que presentaron hernia paraestomal de la cohorte de 7 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados GRECCAR sobre si la presencia o ausencia de la malla influyó en los síntomas, la calidad de vida y las complicaciones de los pacientes con hernias paraestomales.DISEÑO:Estudiamos los síntomas relacionados con la hernia paraestomal entre los dos grupos del ensayo clínico aleatorizado GRECCAR 7, con o sin malla profiláctica en el momento de la cirugía índice.AJUSTES:Los datos fueron extraídos y analizados de manera retrospectiva de la base de datos GRECCAR 7.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal durante los dos años del estudio GRECCAR 7.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se estudiaron varios datos recopilados de manera prospectiva sobre los síntomas en esta población. También estudiamos el intervalo promedio entre la cirugía reparadora de la hernia paraestomal así como también la cirugía índice como el diagnóstico de la hernia paraestomal.RESULTADOS:De entre los 199 pacientes incluidos en el estudio GRECCAR, 36 pacientes (35,6%) fueron diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal de manera clínica y/o radiológica en el grupo sin malla a los 2 años de seguimiento y 33 (33,7%) en el grupo con malla, sin diferencia estadísticamente significativa ( p = 0,89). Ninguno de los síntomas estudiados mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se basa en un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes y, aunque los datos fueron recopilados de forma prospectiva, nos faltaron algunos detalles sobre la categorización de las hernias paraestomales.CONCLUSIONES:Creemos que ya no se debe recomendar el uso de una malla protésica en posición retromuscular para prevenir la hernia paraestomal en pacientes con colostomía terminal. (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Changes in the quality of life of adults with an ostomy during the first year after surgery as part of the Best Practice Spotlight Organisation® Programme

The aim was to analyse changes in the perceived quality of life of patients with an ostomy during the first year after surgery at two or three follow-ups. This is a prospective study of a cohort of 55 patients who were ostomised between June 2021 and September 2022 and cared for under the recommendations set out in the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario® best practice guideline Supporting Adults Who Anticipate or Live with an Ostomy as part of the Best Practice Spotlight Organisation® (BPSO®) programme. The Stoma Quality of Life tool was used. A univariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with a non-improvement in quality of life. Variables showing p < 0.1 were included in a multivariate model. Patients with an ostomy exhibited a moderate-to-good perception of quality of life in both the personal and social dimensions, with no worsening over the first year. Being female (OR = 10.32) and being younger (OR = 0.89) were associated with a higher risk of no improvement in quality of life. The most frequent complications were urinary leakage (p = 0.027) and dermatitis (p = 0.052) at first follow-up; and parastomal hernia (p = 0.009) and prolapse (p = 0.05) at third follow-up. However, they did not lead to a worsening of quality of life, suggesting that these patients were adequately supported under the BPSO® programme.

Prophylactic mesh does not prevent parastomal hernia in long-term: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses evaluating parastomal hernia prevention with mesh placement during end colostomy formation have reported contradictory results. This review aimed to assess the efficacy of this strategy in long-term follow-up according to the latest available data.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. Randomized clinical trials were included if they compared mesh with no mesh during initial end colostomy creation in adult patients to prevent parastomal hernia with a follow-up longer than 2 years. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate parastomal hernia incidence (primary outcome), parastomal hernia repair rate, and mortality. Subgroup analysis included surgical approach and mesh position, and trial sequential analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Eight randomized clinical trials involving 537 patients met the inclusion criteria. Based on long-term follow-up, the incidence of parastomal hernia was not reduced when a prophylactic mesh was placed (relative risk = 0.68 [95% confidence interval:0.46-1.02]; I2 = 81%, P =.06). The parastomal hernia repair rate was low; however, no difference was found between the groups (relative risk = 0.90 [95% confidence interval:0.51-1.56]; I2 = 0%; P = .70), and no difference was detected between the groups when mortality was assessed (relative risk = 1.03 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.39]; I2 = 21%; P = .83). Subgroup analyses did not show differences according to the surgical approach or mesh position used. Regarding trial sequential analysis, an optimal information size was not achieved.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation does not prevent parastomal hernia in the long term. The parastomal hernia repair rate and mortality rate did not vary between the included groups. Heterogeneity among the included randomized clinical trials might restrict the reliability of the results.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

No Reduction in Parastomal Hernia Rate 3 Years After Stoma Construction With Prophylactic Mesh: Three-year Follow-up Results From STOMAMESH-A Multicenter Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to compare rates of parastomal hernia (PSH) 3 years after stoma construction with prophylactic mesh or no mesh. A secondary objective was to compare complications requiring reintervention within 3 years.

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that a prophylactic mesh does not reduce the rate of PSH contrary to older studies. Long-term data on efficacy and safety is however scarce.

METHODS

A randomized controlled double-blind multicenter trial. Patients planned for permanent end colostomy were randomized to either prophylactic mesh in the retromuscular position around the stoma site or no mesh. They were evaluated for PSH clinically and with computed tomography (CT) 3 years after stoma construction. Medical records of all patients included were also reviewed at 3 years to detect any abdominal or abdominal wall surgery during that period.

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients were randomized. At 3 years, 154 patients were available for clinical evaluation and 137 underwent a CT scan. No significant difference in PSH rates was seen between the treatment allocation arms (clinical: P =0.829 and CT: P =0.761, respectively), nor was there a significant difference in the number of reinterventions, but 2 patients had their mesh removed at emergency surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh does not reduce the rate of PSH and cannot be recommended for routine use.

A semi-Markov model comparing the lifetime cost-effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent parastomal hernia in patients undergoing end colostomy creation for rectal cancer

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common problem following colostomy. Using prophylactic mesh during end colostomy creation may reduce PSH incidence, but concerns exist regarding the optimal type of mesh, potential long-term complications, and cost-effectiveness of its use. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent PSH in patients undergoing end colostomy creation for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytical model, stratified by rectal cancer stages I-IV, to estimate the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefits (NMBs) of synthetic, biologic and no mesh from a UK NHS perspective. We pooled the mesh-related relative risks of PSH from 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and superimposed these on the baseline (no mesh) risk from a population-based cohort. Uncertainty was assessed in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Synthetic mesh was less costly and more effective than biologic and no mesh to prevent PSH for all rectal cancer stages. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the incremental NMBs (95% CI) ranged between £1,706 (£1,692 to £1,720) (stage I) and £684 (£678 to £690) (stage IV) for synthetic versus no mesh, and £2,038 (£1,997 to £2,079) (stage I) and £1,671 (£1,653 to £1,689) (stage IV) for synthetic versus biologic mesh. Synthetic mesh was more cost-effective than no mesh unless the relative risk of PSH was ≥0.95 for stages I-III and ≥0.93 for stage IV. [Correction added on 05 October 2021 after first online publication: The estimation of health outcomes (QALYs) for all three interventions evaluated (synthetic mesh; biologic mesh; no mesh) have been corrected in this version.] CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic mesh was the most cost-effective strategy to prevent the formation of PSH in patients after end colostomy for any rectal cancer stage; however, conclusions are dependent on which subset of RCTs are considered to provide the most robust evidence.

Use of prophylactic mesh during initial stoma creation to prevent parastomal herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication following stoma creation. Previous reviews found mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation beneficial in reducing PSH incidence. Since then, several multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) produced widely ranging results rendering previous findings debatable. This current review assessed whether combining the latest larger multicentre RCTs would alter the previous findings.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase were searched from the respective dates of inception until 15 January 2021. RCTs were included if they compared mesh with no mesh during initial stoma creation in adult patients to prevent PSH. Included RCTs were summarised narratively and meta-analysed to estimate the relative risk (RR) of PSH incidence (primary analysis), peristomal complications and PSH repair (secondary analyses). Several subgroup analyses were performed, including mesh type (synthetic/biologic), surgical technique (open/laparoscopic) and mesh position (sublay/intraperitoneal).

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were included in the primary meta-analysis (1070 patients); PSH incidence was reduced in patients with mesh compared with patients without mesh at maximal follow-up (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.77; I²  = 67%; P < 0.01). The number of PSH repairs was fewer in patients who had mesh (RR = 0.63; 0.35-1.14; I²  = 6%; P = 0.39), with no difference in peristomal complications (RR = 0.96; 0.55-1.70; I²  = 0%; P = 0.71), comparing with no mesh. Subgroup analyses suggested that placing synthetic mesh using an open sublay technique might be more beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation reduces PSH incidence and potentially its repair, without an increase in peristomal complications. However, substantial heterogeneity among included RCTs limits confidence in the results.

[Prophylaxis of parastomal, perineal and incisional hernias in colorectal surgery]

This article gives an overview of the relevant evidence from the literature on the topic of prophylactic use of meshes to prevent incisional and parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery. In addition, based on a structured literature search the incidence of hernias in colorectal surgery over the past 5 years was analyzed. A slight majority (54%) of articles recommended the use of prophylactic mesh implantation in colorectal surgery. The prophylactic use of meshes appears to reduce the risk of hernias in colorectal surgery but is associated with a slightly increased perioperative wound infection rate. Parastomal hernias are associated with higher incidence rates compared with incisional hernias and also appear to benefit more from prophylactic mesh implantation. The evidence in the literature is still unclear regarding the use of synthetic or biological implants due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. Perineal hernias were excluded from the analysis due to the incomparability of the mainly casuistic literature. An overview is given in the discussion. The analysis of the literature and also in reflection of our own experience comes to the conclusion that the disrupted integrity of the abdominal wall due to the operation should be prophylactically reinforced with a mesh after colorectal surgery. An evidence-based recommendation is not possible based on the current state of research on implantation techniques, e.g. onlay, sublay intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) and selection of the implant.