Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reversal of stoma with biosynthetic mesh fascial reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Temporary stoma formation remains a common part of modern-day colorectal surgical operations. At the time of reversal, a second procedure is required when the bowel is anastomosed and the musculature is closed. The rate of incisional hernia at these sites is 30%-35% with conventional suture closure. Mesh placement at this site is therefore an attractive option to reduce hernia risk, particularly as new mesh types, such as biosynthetic meshes, are available. The aim of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the use of mesh for prophylaxis of incisional hernia at stoma closure and to explore the outcome measures used by each of the included studies to establish whether they are genuinely patient-centred.

METHOD

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the published literature regarding the use of mesh at stoma site closure operations. Comprehensive literature searches of major electronic databases were performed by an information specialist. Screening of search results was undertaken using standard systematic review principles. Data from selected studies were input into an Excel file. Meta-analysis of the results of included studies was conducted using RevMan software (v.5.4). Randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT data were analysed separately.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with a total of 2008 patients were selected for inclusion, with various mesh types used. Of the included studies, one was a RCT, seven were nonrandomized comparative studies and three were case series. The meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies shows that the rate of incisional hernia was lower in the mesh reinforcement group compared with the suture closure group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12-0.37) while rates of infection and haematoma/seroma were similar between groups (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.41-1.21 and OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63-1.80, respectively). The results of the RCT were in line with those of the nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates that mesh is safe and reduces incisional hernia. However, this is not commonly adopted into current clinical practice and the literature has minimal patient-reported outcome measures. Future work should explore the reasons for such slow adoption as well as the preferences of patients in terms of outcome measures that matter most to them.

Risk factors associated to incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to identify which risk factors are associated with the appearance of an incisional hernia in a stoma site after its closure. This in the sake of identifying which patients would benefit from a preventative intervention and thus start implementing a cost-effective protocol for prophylactic mesh placement in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane library, and ScienceDirect was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting incidence, risk factors, and follow-up time for appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure were included. A fixed-effects and random effects models were used to calculate odds ratios' estimates and standardized mean values with their respective grouped 95% confidence interval. This to evaluate the association between possible risk factors and the appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies totaling 2899 patients were included. Incidence proportion between included studies was of 16.76% (CI95% 12.82; 21.62). Out of the evaluated factors higher BMI (p = 0.0001), presence of parastomal hernia (p = 0.0023), colostomy (p = 0,001), and end stoma (p = 0.0405) were associated with the appearance of incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure, while malignant disease (p = 0.0084) and rectum anterior resection (p = 0.0011) were found to be protective factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement should be considered as an effective preventative intervention in high-risk patients (obese patients, patients with parastomal hernia, colostomy, and end stoma patients) with the goal of reducing incisional hernia rates in stoma site after closure while remaining cost-effective.

PHaLIR: prevent hernia after loop ileostomy reversal-a study protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer is a common cancer worldwide. Surgery for rectal cancer with low anterior resection often includes the formation of a temporary protective loop ileostomy. The temporary ostomy is later reversed in a separate operation. One complication following stoma closure is the development of a hernia at the former stoma site, and this has been reported in 7-15% of patients. The best method to avoid hernia after stoma closure is unclear. The most common closure is by suturing only, but different forms of mesh have been tried. Biological mesh has in a randomized trial halved hernia incidence after stoma reversal. Biosynthetic mesh and retromuscular mesh are currently being evaluated in ongoing studies.

METHODS

The present multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, controlled study will compare standard suture closure of the abdominal wall in loop ileostomy reversal with retromuscular synthetic mesh at the stoma site. The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review board in Stockholm. Patients aged 18-90 years, operated on with low anterior resection and a protective loop ileostomy for rectal cancer and planned for ileostomy reversal, will be considered for inclusion in the study. Randomization will be 1:1 on the operation day with concealed envelopes. The estimated sample size is intended to evaluate the superiority of the experimental arm and to detect a reduction of hernia occurrence from 12 to 3%. The operation method is blinded to the patients and in the chart and for the observer at the 30-day follow-up. The main outcome is hernia occurrence at the stoma site within 3 years postoperatively, diagnosed through CT with strain. Secondary outcomes are operation time, length of hospital stay, pain, and 30-day complications.

DISCUSSION

This double-blinded randomized controlled superiority study will compare retromuscular synthetic mesh during the closure of loop ileostomy to standard care. If this study can show a lower frequency of hernia with the use of prophylactic mesh, it may lead to new surgical guidelines during stoma closure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720262. Registered on October 25, 2018.

Laparoscopic vs. open loop ileostomy reversal: a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies

PURPOSE

The present meta-analysis compares laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (LLIR) with open loop ileostomy reversal (OLIR) to evaluate the advantages of the laparoscopic technique compared to the traditional open technique in ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

Primary endpoints were hospital stay and overall complications. Secondary endpoints were operative time, EBL, readmission, medical complications, surgical complications, reoperation, wound infection, anastomotic leak, intestinal obstruction, and cost of the procedures. The included studies were also divided based on the type of anastomotic approach: extracorporeal laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (ELLIR) and intracorporeal laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (ILLIR).

RESULTS

In the analysis, 4 studies were included. Three hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled. As primary outcomes, a significant difference was found in hospital stay between the LLIR and OLIR groups (MD = -0.67, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.19, P = 0.007). The overall complications outcome resulted in favor of the LLIR group (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95, P = 0.03). As secondary outcomes, the operative time was in favor of the OLIR group (MD = 19.18, 95% CI 10.20-28.16, P < 0.001). Surgical complications were lower in the LLIR group than in the OLIR group. No other differences between the secondary endpoints were found. Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in hospital stay between the ILLIR and OLIR groups (MD = -0.92, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.30, P = 0.004). The overall complications outcome significantly favored the ILLIR group (RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.96, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis shows an advantage in terms of shorter post-operative hospitalization and reduction of complications of LLIR compared to OLIR. The sub-group analysis shows that performing an extracorporeal anastomosis exposes the same risks of the open technique.

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.

Incidence, risk factors, and predictive modeling of stoma site incisional hernia after enterostomy closure: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) is a common complication, but its incidence and risk factors are not well known. The objective of this study is to explore the incidence and risk factors of SSIH and build a predictive model.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis on the patients who underwent enterostomy closure from January 2018 to August 2020. Patient's general condition, perioperative, intraoperative, and follow-up information was collected. The patients were divided into control group (no occurrence) and observation group (occurrence) according to whether SSIH occurred. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to evaluate the risk factors of SSIH, following which we constructed a nomogram for SSIH prediction.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six patients were enrolled in the study. The incidence of SSIH was 24.4% (38 cases), of which 14 were treated with hernia mesh repair, and the others were treated with conservative treatment. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 68 years (OR 1.045, 95% CI 1.002 ~ 1.089, P = 0.038), colostomy (OR 2.913, 95% CI 1.035 ~ 8.202, P = 0.043), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR 1.181, 95% CI 1.010 ~ 1.382, P = 0.037), malignant tumor (OR 4.838, 95% CI 1.508 ~ 15.517, P = 0.008) and emergency surgery (OR 5.327, 95% CI 1.996 ~ 14.434, P = 0.001) are the independent risk factors for SSIH.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, a predictive model for the occurrence of SSIH was constructed to screen high-risk groups of SSIH. For patients at high risk for SSIH, how to deal with the follow-up and prevent the occurrence of SSIH is worth further exploration.

Synthetic mesh versus biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia after loop-ileostomy closure: a randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication after loop-ileostomy closure, rationalizing hernia prevention. Biological meshes have been widely used in contaminated surgical sites instead of synthetic meshes in fear of mesh related complications. However, previous studies on meshes does not support this practice. The aim of Preloop trial was to study the safety and efficacy of synthetic mesh compared to a biological mesh in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure.

METHODS

The Preloop randomized, feasibility trial was conducted from April 2018 until November 2021 in four hospitals in Finland. The trial enrolled 102 patients with temporary loop-ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer. The study patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either a light-weight synthetic polypropylene mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic) (SM) or a biological mesh (Permacol™, Medtronic) (BM) to the retrorectus space at ileostomy closure. The primary end points were rate of surgical site infections (SSI) at 30-day follow-up and incisional hernia rate during 10 months' follow-up period.

RESULTS

Of 102 patients randomized, 97 received the intended allocation. At 30-day follow-up, 94 (97%) patients were evaluated. In the SM group, 1/46 (2%) had SSI. Uneventful recovery was reported in 38/46 (86%) in SM group. In the BM group, 2/48 (4%) had SSI (p > 0.90) and in 43/48 (90%) uneventful recovery was reported. The mesh was removed from one patient in both groups (p > 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Both a synthetic mesh and biological mesh were safe in terms of SSI after loop-ileostomy closure. Hernia prevention efficacy will be published after the study patients have completed the 10 months' follow-up.

Could Stoma Be Avoided after Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer? Experience with Transanal Tube in 195 Cases

Anastomotic leakage is the most-feared complication of rectal surgery. Transanal devices have been suggested for anastomotic protection as an alternative to defunctioning stoma, although evidence is conflicting, and no single device is widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to investigate the safety and efficacy of a transanal tube for the prevention of leakage following laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. A transanal tube was used in the cases of total mesorectal excision with low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis, undamaged doughnuts, and negative intraoperative air-leak test. The transanal tube was kept in place until the seventh postoperative day. A total of 195 consecutive patients were retrieved from a prospective surgical database and included in the study. Of these, 71.8% received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The perioperative mortality rate was 1.0%. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 19 patients, accounting for an incidence rate of 9.7%. Among these, 13 patients underwent re-laparoscopy and ileostomy, while 6 patients were managed conservatively. Overall, the stoma rate was 6.7%. The use of a transanal tube may be a suitable strategy for anastomotic protection following restorative rectal cancer resection. This approach could avoid the burden of a stoma in selected patients with low anastomoses.

Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to answer whether early closure of defunctioning ileostomy may be suitable after low anterior resection.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, up to October 2021, for RCTs comparing early closure (EC ≤ 30 days) and delayed closure (DC ≥ 60 days) of defunctioning ileostomy. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous variables and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. The GRADE methodology was implemented for assessing Quality of Evidence (QoE). TSA was implemented to address the risk of random error associated with sparse data and/or multiple testing.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included for quantitative synthesis. 599 patients were allocated to either EC (n = 306) or DC (n = 293). EC was associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared to DC (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.33 to 4.93; P = 0.005; I² = 0%, QoE High), a lower incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89; P = 0.02; I² = 0%, QoE moderate), and a lower rate of stoma-related complications (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%, QoE moderate). The rate of minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.33; P = 0.74; I² = 0%, QoE low) and major LARS (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; P = 0.16; I² = 0%, QoE low) did not differ between the two groups. TSA demonstrated inconclusive evidence with insufficient sample sizes to detect the observed effects.

CONCLUSION

EC may confer some advantages compared with a DC. However, TSA advocated a cautious interpretation of the results.

PROSPERO REGISTER ID

CRD42021276557.

When to use a prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: a case-control study

Purpose

The closure of a stoma is frequently associated with an acceptable morbidity and mortality. One of the most frequent complications is incisional hernia at the stoma site, which occurs in 20%–40% of cases, higher than incisions in other parts of the abdomen. The objective of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with the presentation of incisional hernia after stoma closure, this in order to select patients who are candidates for prophylactic mesh placement during closure.

Methods

An unpaired case–control study was conducted. This study involved 164 patients who underwent a stoma closure between January 2014 and December 2019. Associated factors for the development of incisional hernia at the site of the stoma after closure were identified, for which it was performed a logistic regression analysis.

Results

41 cases and 123 controls were analyzed, with a mean follow-up of 35.21 ± 18.42 months, the mean age for performing the stoma closure was 65.28 ± 14.07 years, the most frequent cause for performing the stoma was malignant disease (65.85%). Risk factor for the development of incisional hernia at the stoma site after its closure was identified as a history of parastomal hernia (OR 5.90, CI95% 1.97–17.68).

Conclusions

The use of prophylactic mesh at stoma closure should be considered in patients with a history of parastomal hernia since these patients present a significantly higher risk of developing a hernia.