Prophylactic mesh placement to prevent parastomal hernia, early results of a prospective multicentre randomized trial

A Scoping Review of Quality-of-Life Assessments Employed in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons use several quality-of-life instruments to track outcomes following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR); however, there is no universally agreed upon instrument. We review the instruments used in AWR and report their utilization trends within the literature.

METHODS

This scoping review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases. All published articles in the English language that employed a quality-of-life assessment for abdominal wall hernia repair were included. Studies which focused solely on aesthetic abdominoplasty, autologous breast reconstruction, rectus diastasis, pediatric patients, inguinal hernia, or femoral hernias were excluded.

RESULTS

Six hernia-specific tools and six generic health tools were identified. The Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey and Carolinas Comfort Scale are the most common hernia-specific tools, while the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) is the most common generic health tool. Notably, the SF-36 is also the most widely used tool for AWR outcomes overall. Each tool captures a unique set of patient outcomes which ranges from abdominal wall functionality to mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of AWR have been widely studied with several different assessments proposed and used over the past few decades. These instruments allow for patient assessment of pain, quality of life, functional status, and mental health. Commonly used tools include the Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey, Carolinas Comfort Scale, and SF-36. Due to the large heterogeneity of available instruments, future work may seek to determine or develop a standardized instrument for characterizing AWR outcomes.

Impact of parastomal hernia on colostomy costs at 1 year: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (STOMAMESH)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication after the creation of a colostomy, with a prevalence of approximately 50%. Despite the high frequency, little is known how PSH affects the cost of colostomy care.The hypothesis in this study was that PSH increases the cost of colostomy care compared with not having a PSH.

METHODS

Two groups with (N = 61) and without (n = 147) PSH were compared regarding costs of stoma appliances and visits. The population from a large randomized trial comparing construction of colostomy with or without prophylactic mesh (STOMAMESH) was used and cross-matched with health economic data from the National Pharmaceutical Register, 1 year after initial surgery.

RESULTS

Patients with and without a PSH were similar in basic demographic data. No difference in cost of stoma appliances (with PSH 2668.3 EUR versus no PSH 2724.5 EUR, p = 0.938) or number of visits to a stoma therapist (p = 0.987) was seen, regardless of the presence or not of a PSH.

CONCLUSIONS

PSH appears not to affect costs due to colostomy appliances or the need to visit a stoma therapist, in the first year. The lesson to be learnt is that PSHs are not a driver for costs. Other factors may be determinants of the cost of a colostomy, including manufacturers' price and persuasion, means of procurement, and presence of guidelines.

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.

Extraperitonealization of the ileal conduit decreases the risk of parastomal hernia: A single-center, randomized clinical trial

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication in patients receiving ileal conduit urinary diversion after radical cystectomy. In this randomized controlled clinical trial, we validate our previous finding that extraperitonealization of ileal conduit decreases incidence of PSH. In total, 104 consecutive patients undergoing radical cystectomy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center are randomized 1:1 to receive either modified (extraperitonealized) ileal conduit (n = 52) or conventional ileal conduit (n = 52). Primary endpoint is incidence of radiological PSH during follow-up. Incidence of radiological PSH is lower in the modified group than in the conventional group (11.5% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.028) after a median follow-up of 32 months, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.374 (95% confidence interval: 0.145-0.965, p = 0.034) in the modified conduit group. The results support our previous finding that extraperitonealization of the ileal conduit is effective for reducing risk of PSH in patients receiving ileal conduit diversion.

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.

Complications of preventive loop ileostomy versus colostomy: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Preventive colostomy is required for colorectal surgery, and the incidence of complications associated with ileostomy and colostomy remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications between ileostomy and colostomy procedures.

METHODS

Data analysis was conducted on 30 studies, and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed on five studies. The basic indicators, such as stoma prolapse, leak, wound infection, ileus, and a series of other indicators, were compared.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed with complications other than stoma prolapse. Meta-analysis and TSA showed that the incidence of ileostomy prolapse was lower than that of colostomy prolapse, and the difference was statistically significant. Apart from the four complications listed above, the general data analysis showed differences in incidence between the two groups. The incidence of skin irritation, parastomal hernia, dehydration, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections was higher with ileostomy than with colostomy. In contrast, the incidence of parastomal fistula, stenosis, hemorrhage, and enterocutaneous fistula was higher with colostomy than with ileostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

There were differences in the incidence of ileostomy and colostomy complications in the selected studies, with a low incidence of ileostomy prolapse.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022303133.

What should be included in case report forms? Development and application of novel methods to inform surgical study design: a mixed methods case study in parastomal hernia prevention

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation.

DESIGN

(1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a 'long list' of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study.

SETTING

Two secondary care surgical centres in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Successful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study.

RESULTS

59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN17573805.

A technique for laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy with an intact posterior sheath of rectus

Regardless of the advances in surgical techniques, parastomal hernia is still an inevitable complication for many patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominal perineal resection (APR). Extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) seems to be a effective method to reduce the risk of parastomal hernia. We propose a new approach to simplify and standardize laparoscopic EPC to make this operation easy to perform. We used the technique of laparoscopic TEP groin hernia repair to produce an extraperitoneal tunnel, which can not only facilitate precise visualization of the extraperitoneal tunnel but also utilize the intact posterior rectus abdominis sheath as biologic materials to maintain soft-tissue augmentation, with a satisfactory result. With laparoscopy, we can create adequate space without insufficient dissection of the extraperitoneal tunnel while avoiding damage to the retrorectus sheath. At the time of writing, we had performed this method in four patients, without any complications. This technique is effective at preventing parastomal hernia without extra costs.

Prophylactic Effect of Simultaneous Placement of Mesh on Incidence of Parastomal Hernia After Miles' Surgical Resection of Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

To assess the prophylactic effect of simultaneous placement of mesh and the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) after abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study included real-world data of 56 surgically resected patients with colorectal cancer who were consecutively assigned to two groups: control (no mesh, n = 32) and experimental (received mesh, n = 24). An artificial patch was placed under the tunica vaginalis of rectus abdominis for patients in the experimental group, whereas those in the control group received routine sigmoidostomy. The median follow-up time was >20 mo. The difference in hazards function was analyzed by cox regression analysis. The Kaplan-Meir analysis was used to determine the survival curves. A P value of <0.05 was considered as significant.

RESULTS

The postoperative incidence rate of PSH was lower in the experimental (41.7%) group than in the control group (71.9%; P = 0.045). The PSH postoperative time in the experimental group was significantly delayed compared to the control group (48 mo versus 10 mo; P < 0.001). The risk of progression from H1 to H2 was less in the experimental group compared to the control group (49.28% versus 60.86%; P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement significantly prolonged postoperative time for the recurrence of PSH. The incidence of recurrence of H2 (severe PSH) requiring secondary surgical repair was also reduced.

Prophylactic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia Following End Colostomy: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation at reducing rates of parastomal hernia using the most recently available data.

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have uniformly concluded that the use of prophylactic surgical mesh when fashioning an end colostomy reduces the risk of parastomal hernia. However, recent RCTs have failed to corroborate these findings. This study was designed to provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation.

METHODS

A search of Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was performed. Articles were included if they were RCTs that compared the use of prophylactic mesh to no prophylactic mesh during construction of an end colostomy following colorectal resection for benign or malignant disease. The primary outcome was parastomal hernia rate. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects.

RESULTS

From 1,089 citations, 12 RCTs with 581 patients having prophylactic mesh placement and 671 patients not having prophylactic mesh placement met inclusion criteria. Incidence of parastomal hernia was significantly reduced in patients receiving prophylactic mesh (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, p = 0.0003, I² = 74%). Results were no longer significantly different when only studies conducted in the last 5 years were analyzed (p = 0.10). There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity, postoperative mortality, colostomy-specific morbidity, or length of stay between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a significant reduction in the risk of parastomal hernia with the use of prophylactic mesh at the time of end colostomy formation, despite recent evidence suggesting no difference. Further contemporary trials with the application of modern surgical technology are required.

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.

Mini-invasive Surgery and Parastomal Hernia: Higher Frequency and No Prophylactic Mesh Effect

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is very common. Recent reports suggest increased frequency after laparoscopic stoma formation compared with open surgery. A retrospective chart review was designed to appraise the outcomes regarding PSH in open and in laparoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients operated by rectal resection and planned end-colostomy in the period from 2004 to 2018 were reviewed. A total of 70 open and 101 laparoscopic operations were identified. A modified retromuscular mesh application through the trephine was used for the prevention of PSH in 42% of patients in the laparoscopic group.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 58 (1 to 167) months in the open group and 43 (0 to 153) months in the laparoscopic group. Patient characteristics were evenly distributed between the groups, except for more male patients and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Score as well as higher rates of patients with neoadjuvant treatment and mesh prophylaxis, in the laparoscopic group. Clinical PSH occurrences were 2 (3%) in the open group and 18 (18%) in the laparoscopic group (P=0.00). Propensity-weighted analysis estimates increased odds ratio (OR) for PSH in the laparoscopic group [OR=11.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-96.6]. PSH repair rates were 0 in the open group and 6/18 (33%) in the laparoscopic group. Mesh prophylaxis in the laparoscopic group did not influence PSH outcome (OR=1.4; 95% CI: 0.5-4.0). Computed tomography scans were assessable in 48 and 66 patients, with median follow-up timepoints of 42 and 30 months in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively, and 8 (18%) and 21 patients (32%) were diagnosed with PSH. Computed tomography assessment implied an increased risk for PSH in laparoscopy (OR=3.5; 95% CI: 1.1-11.9). Aggregate of chart and computed tomography occurrence of PSH showed an equivalent hazard (OR=3.2; 95% CI: 1.1-9.5).

INTERPRETATIONS

Laparoscopic operations with stoma formation seem to have an increased rate of PSH in comparison with open operations and the results support previous claims. Retromuscular keyhole mesh placement may not be the ideal method of PSH prevention in laparoscopic stoma formation.

Emergency laparoscopic treatment of complicated parastomal hernias

Parastomal hernia is not a rare event. Being by definition a complication of ostomy creation, a parastomal hernia also carries the risk of becoming symptomatic and complicated. At present, there are not enough solid data in literature to allow an evidence-based approach to this condition and to its possible complications, especially in the emergency setting. The aim of this paper is to describe through a narrative review of the literature the different surgical approaches concerning parastomal hernias. In order to exemplify the emergency complications we also present two cases in which the watchful waiting approach eventually led to the necessity of urgent surgical treatment, due to bowel incarceration into the parastomal hernia. We chose to tailor the surgical plan on the patient's anatomic and clinical condition, pursuing the laparoscopic approach with two different surgical technique (Sugarbaker and keyhole), each time estimated by the operating surgeon to be the more suitable option for the patient. We acknowledge that laparoscopy can be an optimal choice for the emergency and elective treatment of parastomal hernias, whenever an appropriate know-how is present.

Use of Prophylactic Mesh When Creating a Colostomy Does Not Prevent Parastomal Hernia: A Randomized Controlled Trial-STOMAMESH

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether parastomal hernia (PSH) rate can be reduced by using synthetic mesh in the sublay position when constructing permanent end colostomy. The secondary aim was to investigate possible side-effects of the mesh.

BACKGROUND

Prevention of PSH is important as it often causes discomfort and leakage from stoma dressing. Different methods of prevention have been tried, including several mesh techniques. The incidence of PSH is high; up to 78%.

METHODS

Randomized controlled double-blinded multicenter trial. Patients undergoing open colorectal surgery, including creation of a permanent end colostomy, were randomized into 2 groups, with and without mesh. A lightweight polypropylene mesh was placed around the colostomy in the sublay position. Follow up after 1 month and 1 year. Computerized tomography and clinical examination were used to detect PSH at the 1-year follow up. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

After 1 year, 211 of 232 patients underwent clinical examination and 198 radiologic assessments. Operation time was 36 minutes longer in the mesh arm. No difference in rate of PSH was revealed in the analyses of clinical (P = 0.866) and radiologic (P = 0.748) data. There was no significant difference in perioperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of reinforcing mesh does not alter the rate of PSH. No difference in complication rate was seen between the 2 arms. Based on these results, the prophylactic use of mesh to prevent PSH cannot be recommended.

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.

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

PURPOSE

To determine whether prophylactic mesh in a sublay position has an impact on the quality-of-life (QoL) of patients receiving an end colostomy.

METHODS

One-year follow-up of patients from the STOMAMESH trial, a randomized controlled double-blinded multicenter study. Patients were randomized to either prophylactic synthetic mesh with a cruciform incision in the center, placed in sublay position, or no prophylactic mesh. Patients attended a 1-year visit and responded to the questionnaires EORTC QLQ C-30 and CR-38. The impact of having a mesh on QoL was determined by comparing a group of patients receiving a mesh with a group without. A subgroup analysis was made depending on whether a PSH was clinically present or not.

RESULTS

Of the 232 randomized patients, 211 patients reached the 1-year clinical follow-up. The response rate of these 211 patients was 70%. No differences were seen in global QoL between the groups. Mesh patients reported significantly less stoma-related problems (p = 0.014) but more sexual problems in males (p = 0.022). When excluding patients with a clinical diagnosis of PSH, the difference in stoma-related problems remained while no significant difference was seen regarding sexual problems in males.

CONCLUSIONS

When forming an end colostomy, prophylactic synthetic mesh in a sublay position did not affect global QoL at 1-year follow-up, but stoma-related problems were fewer even in the presence of a clinically diagnosed PSH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00917995.

Parastomal hernias causing symptoms or requiring surgical repair after colorectal cancer surgery-a national population-based cohort study

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia is a complication with high morbidity that affects the patient's quality of life. The aim of this study was to assess the cumulative incidence of parastomal hernia in patients who have undergone colorectal cancer surgery and to identify potential risk factors that could predispose to the development of this type of hernia in a large population-based cohort over a long follow-up period.

METHODS

The Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and the National Patient Register were used to collect study cohort data between January 2007 and September 2013. All patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery including a permanent stoma were included in the study group.

RESULTS

A total of 39,984 patients were registered during the study period. Of these, 7649 received a permanent stoma. Multivariate proportional hazard analysis, based on 6329 patients for whom all covariates could be retrieved, showed that the only independent risk factor for developing a parastomal hernia was BMI ≥ 30 (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.02-2.17; p < 0.037). A slightly elevated hazard ratio was found for preoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.36; 95% CI 0.96-1.91; p < 0.070). The cumulative incidence of patients diagnosed or surgically treated for parastomal hernia over a follow-up period of 5 years was 7.7% (95% CI 6.1-9.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative incidence of parastomal hernia causing symptoms or requiring surgery after 5 years was at least 7.7%. Obesity increases the risk of developing parastomal hernia.

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.

Fight or Flight: The Role of Staged Approaches to Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Surgeons' comfort with abdominal wall reconstruction techniques and use of prosthetic reinforcement in contaminated fields has made repair of complex hernias during concomitant procedures an attractive endeavor. Understanding the precarious nature of this practice, tenets of thoughtful patient selection, and principles of repair that mitigate morbidity can allow for an educated thought process when deciding whether or not to pursue concomitant abdominal wall reconstruction.

Simultaneous stoma reinforcement and perineal reconstruction with biological mesh - A multicentre prospective observational study

Introduction

The optimal method for perineal reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (elAPE) for low rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to assess whether simultaneous perineal reconstruction and parastomal reinforcement with Strattice™ Reconstructive Tissue Matrix after elAPE could prevent hernia formation.

Methods

In this prospective, multicentre, observational, non-comparative study of consecutive patients undergoing elAPE for low rectal cancer underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ mesh. All patients underwent long course chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery and had excision of the coccyx. Patients were assessed for perineal wound healing at 7 day, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, perineal and parastomal hernia defects on clinical and radiological assessment at 1 year following surgery.

Results

19 patients (median age = 67 years, median BMI = 26, M:F = 11:8) were entered the study. 10 (52.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic elAPE. The median length of post-operative stay was 9 days. Complete wound healing was observed for 8(42%) patients at 1 month, 12(63%) at 3 months, and 19(100%) patients at 12 months. Median time for radiological and clinical assessment for hernias was 12 months. No perineal hernia was detected in 17 patients following CT assessment. Dynamic MRI was undertaken in 11 patients at 12 months and all showed no evidence of perineal hernia. 3 (16%) patients had a parastomal hernia detected radiologically. No mesh was removed during the 12 months follow up period.

Conclusion

Perineal and parastomal reconstruction with biological mesh is a feasible approach for parastomal and perineal hernia prevention after laparoscopic and open elAPE.

•

In this case series, consecutive patients underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ biological mesh.

•

Simultaneous perineal and parastomal reconstruction with Strattice™ mesh is an effective method of hernia prevention after elAPE.

•

High quality prospective RCTs and national/international collaborative audits are required to compare this technique with others for perineal reconstruction.

Preloop trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A temporary loop ileostomy, which is used to decrease the risk of symptomatic anastamotic leakage after anterior resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), is traditionally closed without any mesh. However, as 44% of incisional site hernias need further repair after stoma closure, attention has increasingly been paid to the use of mesh. Research on the prevention of these hernias is scarce, and no studies comparing different meshes exist.

METHOD/DESIGN

The Preloop trial (Clinical Trials NCT03445936) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial to compare synthetic mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and biological implants (Permacol™, Medtronic) at a retromuscular sublay position for the prevention of incisional site hernias after loop-ileostomy closure. The main endpoints in this trial are infections at 30-day follow-up and the incidence of hernias clinically or on CT scan at 10 months after closure of the stoma. The secondary endpoints are other complications within 30 days of surgery graded with the Clavien-Dindo classification, reoperation rate, operating time, length of stay, quality of life measured with RAND-36, and incidence of hernia over a 5-year follow-up period. A total of 100 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio.

DISCUSSION

This is a pilot trial that will be undertaken to provide some novel evidence on the safety profile and efficiency of both synthetic mesh and biological implants for the prevention of incisional hernias after closure by temporary loop ileostomy. The hypothesis is that synthetic mesh is economical but equally safe and at least as effective as biological implants in hernia prevention and in contaminated surgical sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03445936 . Registered on 7 February 2018.

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.

Prophylactic mesh used in ileal conduit formation following radical cystectomy: a retrospective cohort

PURPOSE

Given the difficulty of durable repairs, there is continued interest in hernia prevention. One emerging prevention technique for parastomal hernias is prophylactic mesh placement, whereby mesh is inserted during the index procedure as hernia prophylaxis. We evaluated our experience using prophylactic mesh when creating an ileal conduit.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing robotic cystectomy with ileal conduit from 6/2010 to 8/2017. Patient demographics and operative/perioperative outcomes were documented. We evaluated hernia recurrence using postoperative computed tomography scanning or physical exam. Prophylactic mesh was inserted at the operating surgeon's discretion using a synthetic resorbable or biologic mesh.

RESULTS

During the study period, 38 patients underwent robotic-assisted cystectomy with ileal conduit formation. Average patient age was 68 years, with 28 (74%) male and 35 (92%) Caucasian patients. Three patients (8%) required conversion to open, and one patient (3%) had a concomitant colorectal resection. Thirty-one (88%) patients had postoperative computed tomography scanning. Prophylactic mesh was used in 18 patients (47%) in a retrorectus position. Of these, 15 (83%) patients had synthetic resorbable mesh and 3 (17%) patients had biologic mesh. At average follow-up of 21 months, one hernia recurred (5%) in a patient without mesh placement at the time of ileal conduit. At an average follow-up of 11 months, there have been no recurrences and no mesh-related complications in the prophylactic mesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

Using prophylactic mesh in ileal conduit, creation is feasible and may decrease the parastomal hernia formation rate. Further study of using synthetic resorbable and biologic meshes for hernia prophylaxis is warranted.

Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation

BACKGROUND

Parastomal herniation is a common problem following formation of a stoma after both elective and emergency abdominal surgery. Symptomatic hernias give rise to a significant amount of patient morbidity, and in some cases mortality, and therefore may necessitate surgical treatment to repair the hernial defect and/or re-site the stoma. In an effort to reduce this complication, recent research has focused on the application of a synthetic or biological mesh, inserted during stoma formation to help strengthen the abdominal wall.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate whether mesh reinforcement during stoma formation reduces the incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary objectives included the safety or potential harms or both of mesh placement in terms of stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, patient-reported symptoms/postoperative quality of life, and re-hospitalisation/ambulatory visits.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1970 to 11 January 2018), Ovid Embase (1974 to 11 January 2018), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to 11 January 2018). To identify ongoing studies, we also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 11 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of prosthetic mesh (including biological/composite mesh) placement versus a control group (no mesh) for the prevention of parastomal hernia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the literature search for potential eligibility. We obtained the full articles for all studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria and included all those that met the criteria. Any differences in opinion between review authors were resolved by consensus. We pooled study data into a meta-analysis. We assessed heterogeneity by calculation of I² and expressed results for each variable as a risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We expressed continous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 844 participants. The primary outcome was overall incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary outcomes were rate of reoperation at 12 months, operative time, postoperative length of hospital stay, stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate. We judged the risk of bias across all domains to be low in six trials. We judged four trials to have an overall high risk of bias.The overall incidence of parastomal hernia was less in participants receiving a prophylactic mesh compared to those who had a standard ostomy formation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.66; 10 studies, 771 participants; I² = 69%; low-quality evidence). In absolute numbers, the incidence of parastomal hernia was 22 per 100 participants (18 to 27) receiving prophylactic mesh compared to 41 per 100 participants having a standard ostomy formation.There were no differences in the need for reoperation (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.64; 9 studies, 757 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence); operative time (MD -6.50 (min), 95% CI -18.24 to 5.24; 6 studies, 671 participants; low-quality evidence); postoperative length of hospital stay (MD -0.95 (days), 95% CI -2.03 to 0.70; 4 studies, 500 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or stoma-related infections (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.50; 6 studies, 472 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) between the two groups.We were unable to analyse mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate due to sparse data or because the outcome was not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane Review included 10 RCTs with a total of 844 participants. The review demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia in people who had a prophylactic synthetic mesh placed at the time of the index operation compared to a standard ostomy formation. However, our confidence in this estimate is low due to the presence of a large degree of clinical heterogeneity, as well as high variability in follow-up duration and technique of parastomal herniation detection. We found the rate of stoma-related infection to be similar in both the intervention and control groups.

Prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia: a position statement on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland

AIM

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) Delphi process identified prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia (PSH) as the second highest priority non-cancer related colorectal pathology. This position statement aims to summarize the current evidence base.

METHODS

Four broad themes were identified (prevention, diagnosis/classification, management and operative repair). Guidelines are based on evidence from an extensive literature review using organized searches on the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adhered to for classifying the quality of evidence and reporting the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

The suture repair of PSH other than for patients in extremis is not recommended. Synthetic non-absorbable mesh can be used safely in the short term in the construction of colostomies post rectal surgery, but longer-term follow-up is needed. Other broad recommendations are made around access to stoma care nurses, prevention classification and management.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of high quality evidence for many domains in the prevention and treatment of PSH but the results of several studies are awaited. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: Parastomal hernias are a common and debilitating condition following stoma formation. This position statement from ACPGBI details the current evidence base and ongoing research for the prevention, diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias.

Prophylactic meshes in the abdominal wall

BACKGROUND

There is a high incidence of incisional hernias in specific high-risk patient populations. For these patients, the prophylactic placement of mesh during closure of the abdominal wall incision has been investigated in several prospective studies.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to summarize and synthetize the currently available evidence on prophylactic meshes in a narrative review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic reviews were performed on the use of prophylactic meshes in different indications: midline laparotomies, stoma reversal wounds, and permanent stoma.

RESULTS

High-quality data from randomized trials shows that prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh implantation is safe and effective, both in prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomies and during construction of an elective end colostomy. It should be considered in patients with a high risk for incisional hernia development, such as those receiving open abdominal aortic aneurysm, obesity, or colorectal cancer surgery. It is strongly recommended for construction of an elective permanent end colostomy. For midline laparotomies, both the retromuscular and onlay positions of a prophylactic mesh seem equally effective and safe. For parastomal hernia prevention, only the retromuscular prophylactic mesh and its use for end colostomies has been proven to be effective and safe. No data support the choice of a biological mesh or a synthetic absorbable mesh over a non-absorbable synthetic mesh, even in clean-contaminated surgical procedures. No data yet support the standard use of prophylactic mesh when closing the wound during closure of a temporary stoma.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh implantation should be standard of care during construction of an elective end colostomy and will become standard of care for midline laparotomies in patients at a high risk of incisional hernias.

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.

Using Crowdsourcing as a Platform to Evaluate Lay Perception of Prophylactic Mesh Placement

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) at the time of open abdominal surgery has gained momentum over the last decade. However, there remains an identifiable gap in the literature regarding patient-reported outcomes and qualitative metrics. In effort to gauge the population's understanding or familiarity with PMP, this study provides an educational framework and uses crowdsourcing as a novel means to assess perception among the general population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey study was conducted among the general public to elicit perspectives on PMP. An online crowdsourcing platform was used to capture responses to a questionnaire. Pearson's correlation coefficients, paired t-test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact tests were performed.

RESULTS

Of 433 respondents, 338 (78.1%) were included. Individuals who had previously undergone surgery and those who had prior hernia repair were more likely to choose PMP than surgically naïve patients (P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of respondents support the use of PMP. This study contributes to the existing body of literature on PMP and serves as the first qualitative description to gauge the population's perception and understanding of this surgical technique. Within the evolving health care landscape, understanding quality-of-life measures have become increasingly important in defining successful surgical outcomes. Although the data-driven level-I evidence supports the clinical use of PMP, this study intends to establish a framework for future patient-reported outcome studies.

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.

Risk factors for parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study was designed to identity risk factors for parastomal hernia occurring after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The study group was comprised of 158 patients with rectal cancer who underwent abdominoperineal resection in our department from January 1990 through December 2014. Twelve variables were studied as risk factors for parastomal hernia.

RESULTS

Parastomal hernia developed in 27 patients, including 19 patients who underwent colostomy creation via an intraperitoneal route and 8 patients who underwent colostomy creation via an extraperitoneal route. On univariate analysis, a BMI ≥25 kg/m² was significantly related to the development of parastomal hernia (P = 0. 018), and an ASA physical status ≥2 was slightly but not significantly related to parastomal hernia (P = 0. 076). Multivariate analysis showed that a BMI ≥25 kg/m² was an independent risk factor (odds ratio = 2.9698; P = 0. 016).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a BMI ≥25 kg/m² should be instructed about lifestyle modifications to control preoperative bodyweight and to reduce abdominal pressure.

Technical Considerations in Stoma Creation

Creating an intestinal stoma is commonly the final aspect of an often emergent and complicated operation under difficult circumstances. While creation of a protruding, tension-free, and well-vascularized stoma is often straightforward, one must be prepared for challenging situations such as a thick abdominal wall and short, thickened mesentery. A successful stoma starts with attentive preoperative planning including site marking, thoughtful consideration of alternatives, and attention to technical detail. The tips provided in this article should facilitate the process of selecting the appropriate intestinal segment, identifying the correct stoma site, and creating a functional stoma even in the most challenging situations. Constructing a high-quality stoma will decrease complications and improve the patient's quality of life. Stoma creation is frequently the only component of an operation that the patient will have to live with for the remainder of his/her life.

Stoma Complications

When created properly, an ileostomy or colostomy can dramatically improve a patient's quality of life. Conversely, when a patient develops complications related to their stoma, the impact on physical and mental health can be profound. Unfortunately, significant morbidity is associated with stoma creation conveying high rates of both early and late-term complications. Early complications include stomal ischemia/necrosis, retraction, mucocutaneous separation, and parastomal abscess. Late complications include parastomal hernia, prolapse, retraction, and varices. This review will discuss commonly occurring nondermatological stoma complications and detail management strategies for the ostomate and the surgeon.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia

BACKGROUND

Rates of parastomal hernia following stoma formation remain high. Previous systematic reviews suggested that prophylactic mesh reduces the rate of parastomal hernia; however, a larger trial has recently called this into question. The aim was to determine whether mesh placed at the time of primary stoma creation prevents parastomal hernia.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched using medical subject headings for parastomal hernia, mesh and prevention. Reference lists of identified studies, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were also searched. All randomized clinical trials were included. Two authors extracted data from each study independently using a purpose-designed sheet. Risk of bias was assessed by a tool based on that developed by Cochrane.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials were identified among 150 studies screened. In total 649 patients were included in the analysis (324 received mesh). Overall the rates of parastomal hernia were 53 of 324 (16·4 per cent) in the mesh group and 119 of 325 (36·6 per cent) in the non-mesh group (odds ratio 0·24, 95 per cent c.i. 0·12 to 0·50; P < 0·001). Mesh reduced the rate of parastomal hernia repair by 65 (95 per cent c.i. 28 to 85) per cent (P = 0·02). There were no differences in rates of parastomal infection, stomal stenosis or necrosis. Mesh type and position, and study quality did not have an independent effect on this relationship.

CONCLUSION

Mesh placed prophylactically at the time of stoma creation reduced the rate of parastomal hernia, without an increase in mesh-related complications.

[Prevention of paracolostomic hernia]

AIM

To improve the prevention of paracolostomic hernias.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied the prevention of paracolostomic hernia using mesh allograft. The study involved 73 patients with low-ampullary rectal cancer. Open or laparoscopic abdominoperineal extirpation of rectum was performed in all observations. 21 patients underwent prophylactic Sugarbaker's repair of paracolostomic area. We used the modifications of this surgical stage for transabdominal and retroperitoneal stoma.

RESULTS

There were no postoperative complications associated with the use of allograft. The hernia occurred in one case (4.8%) of prevention group and in 14 (26.9%) patients of control group.

CONCLUSION

The first results of composite allograft application to prevent paracolostomic hernias are encouraging. The absence of specific complications and favorable long-term results allow to continue the investigation.

Prophylactic Mesh Application during Colostomy to Prevent Parastomal Hernia: A Meta-Analysis

Background. Parastomal hernia is a common complication after stoma formation, especially in permanent colostomy. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh application during permanent colostomy for preventing parastomal hernia. Methods. Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes in patients who underwent colostomy with or without prophylactic mesh application were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Libraries. Results. This meta-analysis included 8 randomized controlled trials with 522 participants. Our pooled results showed that prophylactic mesh application (mesh group) reduced the incidence of clinically detected parastomal hernia (risk ratio [RR]: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.38; P < 0.00001), radiologically detected parastomal hernia (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47-0.82; P = 0.0008), and surgical repair for herniation (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.14-0.83; P = 0.02) when compared with conventional permanent colostomy formation (control group). The incidence of complications, including wound infection, peristomal infection, mesh infection, stomal necrosis and stenosis, stoma site pain, and fistula, was not higher in the mesh group than in the control group. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that prophylactic mesh application at the time of primary colostomy formation is a promising method for the prevention of parastomal herniation.

Parastomal Hernia: Avoidance and Treatment in the 21st Century

Despite medical and surgical advances leading to increased ability to restore or preserve gastrointestinal continuity, creation of stomas remains a common surgical procedure. Every ostomy results in a risk for subsequent parastomal herniation, which in turn may reduce quality of life and increase health care expenditures. Recent evidence-supported practices such as utilization of prophylactic reinforcement, attention to stoma placement, and laparoscopic-based stoma repairs with mesh provide opportunities to both prevent and successfully treat parastomal hernias.