Prevention of parastomal hernias with 3D funnel meshes in intraperitoneal onlay position by placement during initial stoma formation

Initial and recurrent management of parastomal hernia after cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: a 10 year single-center experience

PURPOSE

The management of parastomal hernia following cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion is challenging due to its specific nature and a high recurrence rate, yet is poorly described.

METHODS

We retrospectively searched the clinical data warehouse of our center for patients who had primary parastomal hernia repair following cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion. The primary endpoint was recurrence of parastomal hernia; secondary endpoints were postoperative complications and surgical management of recurrences.

RESULTS

From January 1st 2012 to January 1st 2022, 35 patients were included in the study, 13 patients (37.1%) were operated with the Keyhole technique and 22 patients (62.9%) with the Sugarbaker technique. The median follow-up was 24 months. The main complication was urinary tract infection, in 6 patients (17.4%). Postoperative complications were severe in 4 patients (11.4%), 3 (8.6%) for prosthesis extraction due to infection. Ninety-day mortality was null. Eight patients (22.9%) had a symptomatic recurrence of parastomal hernia leading to a second surgery, 4 patients (30.7%) in the Keyhole group and 4 patients (18.2%) in the Sugarbaker group. Surgical management of recurrences involved repair without synthetic mesh in 4 patients (50%) due to difficult adhesiolysis, leading to a third surgery for 3 patients (37.5%).

CONCLUSION

The high rates of recurrence observed with the Keyhole technique, in particular, but also with the Sugarbaker technique, suggest that these techniques should no longer be used for the repair of parastomal hernia after ileal conduit urinary diversion. New preventive and curative approaches need to be explored to improve the surgical management of parastomal hernia.

Parastomal Hernia Prevention Using Funnel-Shaped Intra-Abdominal Mesh Compared to No Mesh: The Chimney Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Prophylactic placement of a mesh has been suggested to prevent parastomal hernia. Evidence to support this practice is contradictory.

Objective

To determine whether funnel-shaped permanent synthetic parastomal mesh is effective and safe in parastomal hernia prevention.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Chimney Trial was a randomized single-blinded multicenter trial conducted in 4 hospitals in Finland and 1 in Sweden from February 2019 and September 2021. Of 439 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted abdominoperineal resection or the Hartmann procedure, 143 were enrolled in the trial, 135 received their allocated intervention, and 121 were analyzed at 12-month follow-up. Data were analyzed from December 2023 to May 2024.

Intervention

In the intervention group, a permanent colostomy was created with a funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh and compared to a control group with a stoma without the mesh.

Main Outcome and Measure

The primary end point was the incidence of computed tomography (CT)-confirmed parastomal hernia 12 months after surgery.

Results

There were 68 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [11.6] years; 36 [53% male and 32 [47%] female) who received the intended allocation in the mesh group and 67 (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [11.7] years; 48 [72%] male and 19 [28%] female) who received the intended allocation in the control group. CT scans were available for 58 patients in the mesh group and 59 patients in the control group at the 12-month follow-up. CT scans confirmed parastomal hernia in 6 of 58 patients (10%) in the mesh group compared to 22 of 59 patients (37%) in the control group (difference, 27%; 95% CI, 12-41; P < .001). Clinical parastomal hernia as a secondary outcome was recorded in 1 of 60 patients (2%) in the mesh group compared to 27 of 61 (43%) in the control group (difference, 41%; 95% CI, 29-55; P < .001). The number of patients with Clavien-Dindo class II ileus was 23 (35%) in the mesh group compared to 11 (17%) in the control group (difference, 18%; 95% CI, 3-32; P = .006). Only slight differences between the groups were detected in other stoma-related complications, readmissions, operative time, surgical site infections, reoperations, and quality of life.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, funnel-shaped parastomal mesh prevented a significant number of parastomal hernias without predisposing patients to mesh- or stoma-related complications during 12-month follow-up. The results of this study suggest the funnel-shaped mesh is a feasible option to prevent parastomal hernia.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03799939.

Parastomal hernia prevention with an intraperitoneal prophylactic 3D-funnel mesh: review of the technique and middle-term results

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia (PH) stands out as a prevalent complication following end colostomies, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Various surgical strategies, predominantly involving prophylactic mesh deployment, have been explored with variable outcomes. This study details our experience and mid-term outcomes utilizing a funnel-shaped mesh.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, non-randomized, observational study examined consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery with end colostomy, incorporating a 3D-funnel mesh from January 2019 to December 2021 (PM group). A historical cohort of patients with end colostomy without prophylactic mesh served as the comparison (C group). Postoperative morbidity within 30 days was documented, and clinical examinations and radiological tests were employed for parastomal hernia diagnosis during follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients participated, with thirty-four in the PM group and thirty-eight in the C group. The PM group experienced 16 postoperative complications, unrelated to the mesh, while the C group recorded 20 complications (p = 0.672). Median follow-up was 22.06 months for the PM group and 63.18 months for the C group. The PM group exhibited a lower parastomal hernia incidence during follow-up (8.8%) compared to the C group(68.4%) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of a 3D-funnel mesh appears effective in reducing parastomal hernia incidence in the short and mid-term, without an associated increase in postoperative morbidity.

Robotic hernia surgery IV. English version : Robotic parastomal hernia repair. Video report and preliminary results

The surgical treatment of parastomal hernias is considered complex and is known to be prone to complications. Traditionally, this condition was treated using relocation techniques or local suture repairs. Since then, several mesh-based techniques have been proposed and are nowadays used in minimally invasive surgery. Since the introduction of robot-assisted surgery to the field of abdominal wall surgery, several adaptations to these techniques have been made, which may significantly improve patient outcomes. In this contribution, we provide an overview of available techniques in robot-assisted parastomal hernia repair. Technical considerations and preliminary results of robot-assisted modified Sugarbaker repair, robot-assisted Pauli technique, and minimally invasive use of a funnel-shaped mesh in the treatment of parastomal hernias are presented. Furthermore, challenges in robot-assisted ileal conduit parastomal hernia repair are discussed. These techniques are illustrated by photographic and video material. Besides providing a comprehensive overview of robot-assisted parastomal hernia repair, this article focuses on the specific advantages of robot-assisted techniques in the treatment of this condition.

[Robotic hernia surgery IV. German version : Robotic parastomal hernia repair. Video report and preliminary results]

The surgical treatment of parastomal hernias is considered complex and is known to be prone to complications. Traditionally, this condition was treated using relocation techniques or local suture repairs. Since then, several mesh-based techniques have been proposed and are nowadays used in minimally invasive surgery. Since the introduction of robot-assisted surgery to the field of abdominal wall surgery, several adaptations to these techniques have been made, which may significantly improve patient outcomes. In this contribution, we provide an overview of available techniques in robot-assisted parastomal hernia repair. Technical considerations and preliminary results of robot-assisted modified Sugarbaker repair, robot-assisted Pauli technique, and minimally invasive use of a funnel-shaped mesh in the treatment of parastomal hernias are presented. Furthermore, challenges in robot-assisted ileal conduit parastomal hernia repair are discussed. These techniques are illustrated by photographic and video material. Besides providing a comprehensive overview of robot-assisted parastomal hernia repair, this article focuses on the specific advantages of robot-assisted techniques in the treatment of this condition.

Modified keyhole plus technique with partial release of posterior rectus sheath for parastomal hernia repair after ileal conduit

Parastomal hernia (PH) is a common complication of ileal conduit diversions. The Sugarbaker technique has a lower recurrence rate than the keyhole (KH) technique and is typically preferred. However, it may not be feasible in some cases because of anatomical features including the length of the conduit and torsion of the ureter. An 80-year-old woman with complaints of abdominal distention was diagnosed with PH 5 years after radical cystectomy. Computed tomography revealed a 90 × 20-mm muscular layer defect on the cranial side of the ileal conduit. Therefore, we performed the KH technique with intracorporeal closure of the defect using a relief incision of the posterior rectus sheath, avoiding the possibility of torsion of the ureteral ileal anastomosis. No hernia recurrence was observed at postoperative 10 months. The proposed KH plus technique may be an effective method for PH after ileal conduit diversion, thus preventing urinary complications.

Parastomal Hernia Repair Using a Silo Biologic Mesh

BACKGROUND

A parastomal hernia (PSH) is an enlargement of the stoma's original opening through the abdominal wall's musculature around a colostomy, ileostomy, or urostomy. Its incidence can be up to 48%. The described methods for its repair have high recurrence rate.This article presents a 3-dimensional silo technique for PSH repair (PSH-R). The aims of this technique are to enhance the structural strength of the tunnel wall, to reinforce both the sidewalls and the fascia above and below the muscular opening, and to maintain a stable stoma opening.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing PSH-R with the silo technique between January 2009 and May 2018 by 2 plastic surgeons were included. The outcome parameters of interest were hernia recurrence and wound-related complications.

RESULTS

This study reports 22 patients (9 male, 13 female) with a mean age of 66.7 years and an average body mass index of 29.2. The variety of ostomy types included 10 colostomies, 7 ileostomies, and 5 urostomies. Postoperatively, there were 3 surgical site infections, 1 seroma, and 2 wound healing delays. Six patients were readmitted, 3 of those because of small bowel obstruction. These 3 cases all required reoperation, in addition to 1 operative revision for stoma retraction. During our average follow-up of 19.9 months, 3 cases of PSH recurrence were diagnosed for a recurrence rate of 13.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

This silo technique is associated with favorable complication and low recurrence rates compared with the available techniques in surgical literature. In our practice, it has established itself as a new and safe technique for complex or recurrent PSHs and should be considered in a surgeon's armamentarium. This technique has become our standard for treatment of recurrent PSHs.

Prophylactic funnel mesh to prevent parastomal hernia in permanent end colostomy: A retrospective cohort study

AIM

This study assessed the impact of a prophylactic, 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh on the rate of parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal rectum resection with permanent end colostomy.

METHODS

Data from 76 patients receiving permanent end colostomy after abdominoperineal rectum resection between 2013 and 2018 were collected retrospectively. Occurrences of parastomal hernia and reoperation rate due to parastomal hernia in patients with and without a prophylactic mesh were compared by univariate, multivariate, and propensity score-adjusted analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (28.9%) of the 76 included patients received a prophylactic mesh. The mean follow-up was 39.3 ± 23.8 months. Mesh implantation reduced the incidence of parastomal hernia to 9.1% (n = 2) compared to 42.6% (n = 23) in patients without a prophylactic mesh. The propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.48, p = 0.001). No reoperations due to parastomal hernia were needed in patients who received a prophylactic mesh, while nine patients without mesh (16.7%) required parastomal hernia repair (HR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.00-1.76, p = 0.015). Mesh implantation was not associated with increased short-term morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2, 31.8% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.468) or 30-day mortality (4.5% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic implantation of a 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh is a safe and effective method to prevent parastomal hernia in patients requiring permanent end colostomy. Mesh placement significantly reduces reoperations due to parastomal hernia.

Abdominal Oblique Internal and External Muscles Gap Colostomy for Lower Incidence of Parastomal Hernia and Higher Quality of Life: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia and fecal incontinence cause severe distress to the rectal cancer patients with stoma after abdominoperineal resection. We attempted a new colostomy technique through the gap between the abdominal oblique internal and external muscles to prevent parastomal hernia and improve quality of life.

METHODS

This cohort study retrospectively examined clinical data from a total of 114 consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection in our center from March 2016 to March 2018 after propensity score matching. Group A included 57 patients who underwent colostomy through the gap between the abdominal oblique internal and oblique external muscles, while group B included 57 patients who underwent extraperitoneal colostomy. Patients' quality of life was evaluated using Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL) Scale.

RESULTS

Group A had a lower incidence of parastomal hernia (0% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.004) and higher quality of life, especially in lifestyle, coping/behavior and embarrassment domains (all p values < 0.05) than group B both during the follow-up period. The incidence of other outcomes did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Colostomy through the gap between the abdominal oblique internal and oblique external muscle is a new technique showing both safety and effectiveness for preventing parastomal hernia and improving quality of life after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

Prophylactic retromuscular mesh placement for parastomal hernia prevention: a retrospective cohort study of permanent colostomies and ileostomies

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is the most common complication of stoma formation. The safety and efficiency of prophylactically placing mesh to prevent PSH remain controversial. To address this question, we examined the incidence of clinical and radiological PSH when using parastomal prophylactic mesh (PPM).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, single-center, cohort study that included all patients with permanent stoma creation between 2015 and 2018. Patients were divided into two groups according to the utilization of PPM or not.

RESULTS

During the study period, 185 patients had a permanent stoma created, 144 with colostomy and 41 with ileostomy. PPM was placed in 79 patients. There was no difference in the need for early surgical reintervention (p = 0.652) or rehospitalization (p = 0.314) for stoma-related complications in patients with mesh as compared with patients without. Similarly, there was no difference in operative time (p = 0.782) or in length of hospital stay (p = 0.806). No patients experienced infection of the mesh or required prosthesis removal. There was a lower incidence rate of PSH with PPM placement in patients with permanent colostomy [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.28-0.89); p = 0.018]. In contrast, a higher incidence rate of PSH was observed in patients with ileostomy and PPM [adjusted HR 5.92 (95% confidence interval 1.07-32.65); p = 0.041].

CONCLUSION

Parastomal prophylactic mesh placement to prevent PSH is a safe and efficient approach to reduce the incidence of PSH in patients requiring a permanent colostomy. However, mesh may increase the rate of PSH after permanent ileostomy.

The Role of Mesh Implants in Surgical Treatment of Parastomal Hernia

A parastomal hernia is a common complication following stoma surgery. Due to the large number of hernial relapses and other complications, such as infections, adhesion to the intestines, or the formation of adhesions, the treatment of hernias is still a surgical challenge. The current standard for the preventive and causal treatment of parastomal hernias is to perform a procedure with the use of a mesh implant. Researchers are currently focusing on the analysis of many relevant options, including the type of mesh (synthetic, composite, or biological), the available surgical techniques (Sugarbaker’s, “keyhole”, or “sandwich”), the surgical approach used (open or laparoscopic), and the implant position (onlay, sublay, or intraperitoneal onlay mesh). Current surface modification methods and combinations of different materials are actively explored areas for the creation of biocompatible mesh implants with different properties on the visceral and parietal peritoneal side. It has been shown that placing the implant in the sublay and intraperitoneal onlay mesh positions and the use of a specially developed implant with a 3D structure are associated with a lower frequency of recurrences. It has been shown that the prophylactic use of a mesh during stoma formation significantly reduces the incidence of parastomal hernias and is becoming a standard method in medical practice.

Permanent end-colostomy parastomal hernia prevention using a novel three-dimensional mesh

PURPOSE

Prophylactic mesh placement has been proposed to reduce the high occurrence of parastomal hernia (PSH) after stoma formation.

METHODS

This is an observational study comparing two cohorts of patients: a mesh prophylaxis group (who received mesh prevention since introduction at our Institution) and a no mesh prophylaxis group (retrospectively selected from our historical series). Same exclusion criteria were applied for both groups. The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center for colorectal surgery. 43 patients were operated with mesh prophylaxis between May 2015 and may 2019. 45 patients underwent end-colostomy formation without prophylaxis between April 2011 and April 2015. The primary outcome measure was PSH development at 12-month follow up.

RESULTS

Demographic variables and risk factors for PSH were comparable between the two groups. There was no difference between the two cohorts in terms of operative time and main early postoperative outcomes. 37 patients completed the 12-month follow up in each group. PSH occurrence after 12-months was 11% in the mesh prophylaxis group and 54% in the no mesh prophylaxis group (p < 0.0001). There were no differences in long-term complications. 5% of patients who received mesh prophylaxis underwent emergency surgery for bowel occlusion at 7 and 10 months after surgery, with partial or complete mesh removal. At multivariate analysis, mesh prophylaxis was a protective factor for PSH development at 12 months (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh placement appears to be effective in preventing PSH.

Comparison of different modalities for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication following stoma formation. The incidence of PSH varies widely due to several factors including differences in diagnostic modality, observer, definition, and classification used for diagnosing PSH. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the modalities used to identify PSH.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched. Studies reporting PSH incidence rates detected by two or more different diagnostic modalities or inter-observer variation on one diagnostic modality were included. Article selection and assessment of study quality were conducted independently by two researchers using Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018112732.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (n = 2514 patients) were included. Nineteen studies compared CT to clinical examination with relative difference in incidence rates ranging from 0.64 to 3.0 (n = 1369). Overall, 79% of studies found an increase in incidence rate when using CT. Disagreement between CT and clinical examination ranged between 0 and 37.3% with pooled inter-modality agreement Kappa value of 0.64 (95% CI 0.52-0.77). Four studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography (n = 103). Compared with peroperative diagnosis, CT and ultrasonography both seemed accurate imaging modalities with a sensitivity of 83%.

CONCLUSION

CT is an accurate diagnostic modality for PSH diagnosis and increases PSH detection rates, as compared with clinical examination. Studies that specially focus on the diagnostic accuracy are needed and should aim to take patient-reported outcomes into account. A detailed description of the diagnostic approach, modality, definition, and involved observers is prerequisite for future PSH research.

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.

[Principles and parallels of prevention and repair of parastomal hernia with meshes]

After formation of a permanent terminal stoma by enterostomy, parastomal hernia (PSH) occurs in up to 80% of cases and leads to a wide variety of symptoms and complications with a high rate of emergency operations due to incarceration (ca. 15%). Consequently, greater consideration should be given to PSH prevention even as early as the time of enterostomy and generously applied indications for elective repair of manifest PSH. The aim of this article is to summarize and evaluate the current evidence for PSH repair and prevention. Poor postoperative results after attempted repair of manifest PSH with slit meshes in different layers of the abdominal wall shift the focus onto stoma lateralization (sandwich and Sugarbaker techniques) or 3‑dimensional tunnel-shaped implants with meshes to cover the stomal edges. To date, the best strategy for PSH prevention has still not been defined and techniques with slit meshes show different results. Nevertheless, 10 prospective randomized trials, meta-analyses, a Cochrane review and guidelines from the European Hernia Society (EHS) about various slit-mesh devices in sublay, onlay and intraperitoneal positions confirmed significantly reduced rates of PSH after mesh augmentation compared to conventionally sutured enterostomy without morbidity associated with the implanted material. Despite the positive data situation PSH prevention is seldom performed in daily practice, which is due to uncertainty surrounding the most suitable surgical strategy, the necessity to spend additional time at the end of a demanding operation, the aversion to implanting meshes into a contaminated operative field and the lack of remuneration of preventive surgical procedures. Future trials should, therefore, no longer compare standard enterostomy techniques with one prevention method in general but should have a new focus on techniques providing adequate results in PSH repair (Sugarbaker, sandwich and 3‑D tunnel meshes), probe the advantages and evaluate the differences in outcome between these strategies.

Parastomal Hernia Repair with a 3D Funnel Intraperitoneal Mesh Device and Same-Sided Stoma Relocation: Results of 56 Cases

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias (PSHs) are a common and challenging issue. In previous studies, three-dimensional (3D) funnel mesh devices have been used successfully for the repair of PSHs.

METHODS

We performed an analysis of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent a same-sided stoma reposition with 3D funnel-shaped mesh augmentation in intraperitoneal (IPOM) position at our department between the years of 2012 and 2015. Primary outcome parameters were intra- and postoperative surgical complications and recurrence rate during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients could be included in this analysis. PSH repair was performed in 89.3% as elective surgery and in 73% in laparoscopic technique. A concomitant incisional hernia (EHS type 2 and 4) was found in 50% and repaired in a single-step procedure with PSH. Major postoperative complications requiring redo surgery (Clavien-Dindo ≥3b) were identified in 8.9% (5/56). Overall recurrence rate was 12.5% (7/56). Median follow-up time was 38 months, and a 1-year follow-up rate of 96.4% was reached.

CONCLUSION

PSH repair with 3D funnel mesh in IPOM technique is safe, efficient and easy to perform in laparoscopic and open surgical approaches providing advantageous results compared to other techniques. Furthermore, simultaneous detection and treatment of concomitant incisional hernias has shown favorable. However, the mesh funnel distends and becomes shortened encasing a bulky bowel mesentery and further shrinkage happens eccentric. Changing mesh construction according to lengthening the funnel could possibly lead to reduction in recurrence.

Incisional hernia prevention and use of mesh. A narrative review

Incisional hernias are a very common problem, with an estimated incidence around 15-20% of all laparotomies. Evisceration is another important problem, with a lower rate (2.5-3%) but severe consequences for patients. Prevention of both complications is an essential objective of correct patient treatment due to the improved quality of life and cost savings. This narrative review intends to provide an update on incisional hernia and evisceration prevention. We analyze the current criteria for proper abdominal wall closure and the possibility to add prosthetic reinforcement in certain cases requiring it. Parastomal, trocar-site hernias and hernias developed after stoma closure are included in this review.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias

BACKGROUND

International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project.

METHODS

The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants.

RESULTS

End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed.

CONCLUSION

An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

The Longtan Modification: An Effective and Economical Surgical Innovation for Parastomal Hernia Post-Intraperitoneal Sigmoidostomy

PURPOSE

This study was designed to introduce a new surgical innovation, referred to as the "Longtan modification," for cases with parastomal hernia (PSH) following intraperitoneal sigmoidostomy, and to assess the safety and feasibility of this procedure.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and June 2016, a total of 26 consecutive cases with PSH successfully underwent this procedure. The patient demographics, surgical outcomes, stoma-related complications, and the stoma function were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean diameter of the hernia ring was 7.6 cm, mean operation time was 94.2 minutes, and mean intraoperative blood loss was 18.0 mL. The mean period of postoperative hospitalization was 4.4 days while the mean hospitalization cost was only $3,750 USD. There were no severe complications such as postoperative hemorrhage, ischemic necrosis, peritoneal infection, or intestinal obstruction, although one case suffered from postoperative infection at the site of incision. None of the cases had a recurrence of PSH during the follow-up period. In addition, the stoma functioned efficiently and appropriately following the Longtan modification.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the Longtan modification appears to be an effective and economical surgical innovation for cases with PSH following intraperitoneal sigmoidostomy.

Preventing parastomal hernias with systematic intraperitoneal specifically designed mesh

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia is a very common complication after stoma formation. Current surgical techniques for repairing parastomal hernia have unsatisfactory results. We aim to assess our preliminary experience with prophylactic mesh placement at the time of stoma formation.

METHODS

Data were prospectively recorded. A specifically designed mesh made of polyvinyl fluoride with central conduit (Dynamesh IPST®) was fixed using an intra-peritoneal onlay technique. Safety was evaluated by means of surgical data and frequency of mesh-related complications, efficacy by the rate of parastomal hernias.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included in the study. Three of them died before a year of follow up (not related to the stoma), so they were excluded. The other 31 patients (11 women and 20 men) were prospectively followed up after different pathologies resulting in a permanent colostomy. Twelve months after surgery CT-Scan imaging revealed two (6.4%) parastomal hernias, one of them already clinically suspected. During the follow up, 29% of the patients (n = 9) developed another type of hernia (incisional, inguinal or both). In five patients (16.1%) a light stomal retraction of the otherwise slightly prominent ostomy was observed. Median clinical follow-up was 17.5 months (range 12-34).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic parastomal mesh placement might be a safe and effective procedure with a potential to reduce the risk of parastomal hernia. Routine use of this technique should be further analysed.

Primary prevention of peristomial hernias via parietal prostheses: A randomized, multicentric study (GRECCAR 7 trial)

BACKGROUND

Peristomal hernia (PH) is a common complication of colostomy. It often leads to a decrease in the patient's quality of life. Surgical procedures for PH are difficult and present high failure and morbidity rates. This randomized, double blind, multicentre trial was conducted to determine the benefits and risks of mesh reinforcement vs conventional stoma formation in preventing PH.

METHODS

200 patients undergoing a permanent end colostomy are randomized into two groups. In the mesh group an end-colostomy is created inserting a lightweight (<50g/m(2)) monofilament mesh in a sublay location, and compared to a group with traditional stoma creation. The presence or absence of a PH is determined by another practitioner by clinical exam and by a CT scan or MRI after 24 months of follow-up. 19 university hospitals participate during a 3-year inclusion period. The primary endpoint is the comparison of the PH incidence. To find a difference of 20% with a power of 80% a total number of 174 patients must be included.

CONCLUSION

This GRECCAR study is a multicentre, double blind, and randomized trial conducted to determine whether a preventive insertion of a prosthetic mesh decreases the incidence of a PH with an acceptable morbidity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01380860.

Long-term assessment of parastomal hernia prevention by intra-peritoneal mesh reinforcement according to the modified Sugarbaker technique

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a very frequent complication after creation of a permanent colostomy. The aim of that study is to assess the safety and the long-term efficacy of an intra-peritoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) positioned at the time of primary stoma formation to prevent PSH occurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

That multicentre prospective study concerned 29 consecutive patients operated for cancer of the low rectum between 2008 and 2014. There were 14 men and 15 women with a median age of 73 years (range 39-88) and a BMI of 28 (range 21-43). All the patients had potentially curative abdominoperineal excision associated with IPOM reinforcement of the abdominal wall with a round non-slit composite mesh centred on the stoma site and covering the lateralized colon according to the modified Sugarbaker technique. The major outcomes analysed were operative time, complications related to mesh and PSH incidence. Patients were evaluated at 6-month intervals for the first 2 years and thereafter annually with physical examination and CT scan control. For PSH evaluation, we used the classification of Moreno-Matias.

RESULTS

Surgery was performed by laparoscopy in 24 patients and by laparotomy in 5; 17 had a trans-peritoneal colostomy and 12 an extra-peritoneal colostomy. The median size of the mesh was 15 cm (range 12-20), the operative time 225 min. (range 123-311) and the specific time for mesh placement 15 min. (range 10-30). With a median follow-up of 48 months (range 6-88), no mesh infection or complication requiring mesh removal were recorded. No patient developed a true PSH; two of them had a type Ia PSH (only containing the bowel forming the colostomy with a sac < 5 cm) and were totally asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

In our series, the incidence of PSH was 7 % and no specific mesh-related complication was noted. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement according to the modified Sugarbaker is an effective technique that addresses the issues related to the occurrence of PSH.

Prevention of a Parastomal Hernia by Biological Mesh Reinforcement

Introduction

In the field of hernia prevention, the prophylactic mesh-reinforcement of stoma-sites is one of the most controversially discussed issues. The incidence of parastomal hernias in the literature reported to be up to 48.1% after end colostomy and up to 30.8% after loop of colostomy, but still remains uncertain due to diagnostic variety of clinical or radiological methods, heterogeneous patient groups and variable follow-up intervals. Anyway, the published data regarding the use of synthetic or bio-prostethic meshes in the prevention of parastomal hernia at the primary operation are very scarce.

Methods

A literature search of the Medline database in terms of biological prophylactic mesh implantation in stoma creation identified six systematic reviews, two randomized controlled trials (RCT), two case-controlled studies, and one technical report.

Results

In a systematic review focusing on the prevention of parastomal hernia including only RCTs encompassing one RCT using bio-prosthetic mesh the incidence of herniation was 12.5% compared to 53% in the control group (p < 0.0001). In one RCT and two case-control studies, respectively, there was a significant smaller incidence of parastomal herniation as well as a similar complication rate compared to the control group. Only in one RCT, no significant difference regarding the incidence of parastomal hernia was reported with comparable complication rates.

Conclusion

Thus, so far two RCT and two case-control studies are published with prophylactic bio-prosthetic reinforcement in stoma sites. The majority revealed significant better results in terms of parastomal herniation and without any mesh-related complications in comparison to the non mesh group. Further, multicenter RCT are required to achieve a sufficient level of recommendation.