The lateral rectus abdominis positioned stoma (LRAPS) in the construction of end colostomies, loop ileostomies and ileal conduits

Repair of parastomal hernia after Bricker procedure: retrospective consecutive experience of a tertiary center

BACKGROUND

Ileal conduit parastomal hernias (ICPHs) are frequent after radical cystectomy with ileal conduit urinary diversion, but their management is debated. This study aimed to review the results of ICPH repair according to Sugarbaker or Sandwich techniques, with special interest in ICPH recurrence and urological complications.

METHODS

The authors reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing ICPH repair between January 2014 and December 2020. Primary endpoints were ICPH recurrences at clinical exam and cross-sectional abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. Secondary endpoints were any other complications possibly related to the ICPH repair.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients underwent ICPH repair surgery (16 Sugarbaker and 7 Sandwich techniques) during the study period. Sixteen patients underwent a primary laparoscopic approach. All but one patient underwent at least one abdominal CT during the follow-up. Median clinical and CT scan follow-up times were 57 and 50.5 months, respectively. Clinical and CT ICPH recurrence rates were 4.5% and 13% at 5 years, respectively. Eighteen patients (78%) suffered no urological complications during the follow-up period, but three patients (13%) needed redo surgery on the urinary ileal conduit.

CONCLUSION

The modified Sugarbaker or Sandwich techniques might be considered as promising techniques for ICPH repair with a low rate of recurrence. The urological complications, and particularly the ileal conduit-related issues, need to be evaluated in further studies. Controlled and prospective data are required to compare the Sugarbaker and Sandwich techniques to the Keyhole approach for ICPH repairs.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia in urological surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence of incisional hernia in patients undergoing direct access to the abdominal cavity in urological surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central from 1980 to the present according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Eighty-four studies were selected for inclusion in this analysis, and meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed.

RESULTS

The total incidence in the 84 studies was 4.8% (95% CI 3.7% - 6.2%) I2 93.84%. Depending on the type of incision, it was higher in the open medial approach: 7.1% (95% CI 4.3%-11.8%) I2 92.45% and lower in laparoscopic surgery: 1.9% (95% CI 1%-3.4%) I2 71, 85% According to access, it was lower in retroperitoneal: 0.9% (95% CI 0.2%-4.8%) I2 76.96% and off-midline: 4.7% (95% CI 3.5%-6.4%) I2 91.59%. Regarding the location of the hernia, parastomal hernias were more frequent: 15.1% (95% CI 9.6% - 23%) I2 77.39%. Meta-regression shows a significant effect in reducing the proportion of hernias in open lateral, laparoscopic and hand-assisted compared to medial open access.

CONCLUSION

The present review finds the access through the midline and stomas as the ones with the highest incidence of incisional hernia. The use of the lateral approach or minimally invasive techniques is preferable. More prospective studies are warranted to obtain the real incidence of incisional hernias and evaluate the role of better techniques to close the abdomen.

Parastomal hernia after radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion: a narrative review

Radical cystectomy (RC) with ileal conduit urinary diversion has become a common surgical procedure. Stomal complications and particularly parastomal hernia (PH) are the most frequent complications and causes of reintervention after RC with ileal conduit urinary diversion. PH is usually asymptomatic. When PH increases in size and becomes symptomatic, it clearly impairs patients' quality of life in terms of physical limitation, mental distress and social interaction. The aim of this article was to review the current knowledge on PH after RC with ileal conduit urinary diversion, regarding its natural history, risk factors, prevention and surgical management. There is no strong recommendation on the ideal surgical technique for repair of PH after RC, but laparoscopic Sugarbaker or Sandwich techniques with non-absorbable meshes are emerging as the preferred modern means of PH repair. Techniques for prevention and repair of PH after RC need to be specifically evaluated in future prospective studies.

Urostomal ileal conduit complications in association with abdominal wall mesh implantation

OBJECTIVE

Parastomal hernia (PH) in association with an ileal conduit is a common complication that is difficult to treat. Mesh reinforcement has been suggested to improve outcomes; either as prophylaxis or for treatment of a parastomal hernia during abdominal wall reconstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in consecutive patients subjected to mesh implantation between 2000 and 2016 having a concurrent or previous ileal conduit reconstruction. Postoperative and late urostomal complications, as well as hernia occurrence, were ascertained by a chart review of patients' records.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were included of whom 13 (52%) developed either a urostomal complication, a PH, or both. Complications were caused by mesh erosion in four patients, of which three were diagnosed more than five years after surgery. Four patients developed a urostomal stenosis. One out of eight patients with urostomal complications were subjected to a new ileal conduit reconstruction and another four to other types of revisional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Every second patient with an ileal conduit developed either a local urostomal complication, a PH, or both after abdominal wall mesh reconstruction. A careful and cautious attitude towards the use of mesh in patients with an ileal conduit is suggested.

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.