Prevention of parastomal hernia in the emergency setting

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.

Biosynthetic meshes in contaminated fields: where are we now? A systematic review and meta-analysis in humans

PURPOSE

Selection of an appropriate mesh reinforcement for hernia repair in contaminated fields is a significant problem for surgeons. To date the proper mesh for contaminated fields has not been found. Biosynthetic meshes have emerged as new treatment option in contaminated fields. This study aims to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of biosynthetic meshes in contaminated fields.

METHODS

Systematic electronic search (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus), according to PRISMA criteria, was performed. A literature search of scientific papers was performed by two reviewers until April 2021. Articles were chosen based on reference to biosynthetic meshes, their use in infected fields, and in human subjects. GRADE methodology and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of studies. According to CDC-Centers for Disease Control classes patients were divided into two subgroups, group 1 (CDC class 2) and group 2 (CDC classes 3-4).

RESULTS

The research included 21 articles and 1619 patients were analyzed. Long-term follow-up showed a significant higher recurrence rate than short-term follow-up. P < 0.001. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that the SSI were significantly higher in CDC classes 3-4 than CDC class 2 (P < 0.01). No differences were found in SSO (P = 0.06) and recurrence (P = 0.37) rate among the two groups. Phasix™ was the most common mesh in 15 studies. The mean follow-up was 23.0 months. The surgical site infection (SSI) rate was 17.3%. The surgical site occurrence (SSO) rate was 32.4%. Recurrence rate was 11.5%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes of abdominal wall repair using biosynthetic mesh in contaminated-infected settings. The results show good results in patients at high risk of postoperative wound complications. The aim of this study is to add to the growing literature on biosynthetic mesh a picture of current literature evidence to help future researchers performing further studies on this topic.

Chimney Trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias (PSHs) are common, troubling the lives of people with permanent colostomy. In previous studies, retromuscular keyhole mesh placement has been the most-used technique for PSH prevention but results have been controversial. Additionally, surgical treatment of PSHs is associated with a high rate of complications and recurrences. Therefore, it is crucial to find the most effective way to prevent PSHs in the first place without an increased risk of complications. Due to a lack of adequate research, there is no clear evidence or recommendations on which mesh or technique is best to prevent PSHs.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Chimney Trial is a Nordic, prospective, randomized controlled, multicenter trial designed to compare the feasibility and the potential benefits of specifically designed, intra-abdominal onlay mesh (DynaMesh®-Parastomal, FEG Textiltechnik GmbH, Aachen, Germany) against controls with permanent colostomy without mesh. The primary outcome of the Chimney Trial is the incidence of a PSH detected by a computerized tomography (CT) scan at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are the rate of clinically detected PSHs, surgical-site infection as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), complications as defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification, the reoperation rate, operative time, length of stay, quality of life as measured by the RAND-36 survey and colostomy impact score, and both direct and indirect costs. For each group, 102 patients were enrolled at attending hospitals and randomized at a ratio of 1:1 by browser-based software to receive a preventive mesh or a conventional colostomy without a mesh. Patients will be followed for 1 month and at 1, 3, and 5 years after the operation for long-term results and complications.

DISCUSSION

The Chimney Trial aims to provide level-I evidence on PSH prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03799939. Registered on 10 January 2019.

Ostomy-Related Complications

Ileostomy or colostomy formation is an important component of many surgical procedures performed for a wide range of disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Despite the frequency with which intestinal stomas are created, stoma-related complications remain common and are associated with significant morbidity as well as cost. Some of the most prevalent complications of stoma formation which will be detailed in this article include peristomal skin complications, retraction, stomal necrosis, stomal stenosis, prolapse, bleeding, dehydration from high ostomy output, and parastomal hernia. The authors will review these common complications, detail means to avoid or prevent them, and outline recommendations for management.

New advances in prophylactic mesh placement in end colostomy

Patients with end colostomy often undergo multiple operations because of high incidence and recurrence rates of parastoml hernia. Therefore, it is particularly important to prevent the occurrence of parastomal hernia when undergoing an end colostomy. Using a prophylactic mesh, which is developed and gradually recognized in recent years, is one of the methods to prevent parastomal hernia. Here, we review the application and new advances in prophylactic mesh placement in end colostomy.