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

Umbrella review of systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of using mesh in the prevention of parastomal hernias

BACKGROUND

This umbrella review aimed to summarize the findings and conclusions of published systematic reviews on the prophylactic role of mesh against parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

PRISMA-compliant umbrella overview of systematic reviews on the role of mesh in prevention of parastomal hernias was conducted. PubMed and Scopus were searched through November 2023. Main outcomes were efficacy and safety of mesh. Efficacy was assessed by the rates of clinically and radiologically detected hernias and the need for surgical repair, while safety was assessed by the rates of overall complications.

RESULTS

19 systematic reviews were assessed; 7 included only patients with end colostomy and 12 included patients with either ileostomy or colostomy. The use of mesh significantly reduced the risk of clinically detected parastomal hernias in all reviews except one. Seven reviews reported a significantly lower risk of radiologically detected parastomal hernias with the use of mesh. The pooled hazards ratio of clinically detected and radiologically detected parastomal hernias was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.26-0.41) and 0.55 (95%CI: 0.45-0.68), respectively. Six reviews reported a significant reduction in the need for surgical repair when a mesh was used whereas six reviews found a similar need for hernia repair. The pooled hazards ratio for surgical hernia repair was 0.46 (95%CI: 0.35-0.62). Eight reviews reported similar complications in the two groups. The pooled hazard ratio of complications was 0.81 (95%CI: 0.66-1).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of surgical mesh is likely effective and safe in the prevention of parastomal hernias without an increased risk of overall complications.

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.

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.

Establishment and evaluation of rat models of parastomal hernia

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia poses a challenging problem in the field of hernia surgery. The high incidence and recurrence rates of parastomal hernia necessitate surgeons to enhance surgical techniques and repair materials. This study aimed to develop a rat model of parastomal hernia by inducing various types of defects on the abdominal wall with colostomy. This established method has potential for future studies on parastomal hernia.

METHODS

In this study, 32 male rats were included and randomly divided into four groups: the oblique abdominis excision (OE), oblique abdominis dissection (OD), rectus abdominis excision (RE), and rectus abdominis dissection (RD) groups. In each group, colostomy was performed and an abdominal wall defect was induced. The rats were observed for 28 days following surgery. The survival rate, body weight, parastomal hernia model scores, abdominal wall adhesion and inflammation, and collagen level in the hernial sac were compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences in survival rate and weight were observed among the four groups. The parastomal hernia model scores in the RE and RD groups were significantly higher than those in the OE and OD groups. The ratio of collagen I/III in the RE and RD groups was significantly lower than that in the OE and OD groups. Adhesion and inflammation levels were lower in the RE group than in the RD group.

CONCLUSION

Based on a comprehensive comparison of the findings, RE with colostomy emerged as the optimal approach for establishing parastomal hernia models in rats.

How often is prophylactic parastomal mesh placement performed after rectal resection without sphincter preservation? An analysis of German nationwide hospital discharge data among 41,697 patients

PURPOSE

The European Hernia Society guidelines of parastomal hernias, published in 2017, strongly recommend prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon the construction of a permanent end colostomy to reduce the incidence of parastomal hernias. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the guidelines in Germany.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicentric analysis conducted in December 2022 at the University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel. Anonymous data on rectal resection without sphincter preservation in the period 2010-2020 were extracted from the German nationwide hospital discharge data set. Individuals with a hernia and < 18 years old were excluded. Another exclusion criterion was a performed colectomy or proctocolectomy with an ileoanal pouch and placement of an absorbable mesh. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of prophylactic parastomal mesh placement following rectal resection without sphincter preservation in Germany. Cases reporting both non-absorbable mesh placement and rectal resection without sphincter preservation were considered prophylactic mesh insertions.

RESULTS

A total of 41,697 patients received a rectal resection without sphincter preservation and without non-absorbable mesh placement. Among these individuals, 27,089 were male and 14,608 were female. The rate of reoperations (3.1%) and the length of hospital stay (25.3 days ± 19.32) remained almost constant during these 10 years. The rate of prophylactic mesh placement was increasing from 0.2% (n = 8) in 2010 to 6.4% (n = 198) in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, only the minority of patients who have undergone rectal resection without sphincter preservation receive prophylactic mesh insertion.

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.

Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: keyhole, Sugarbaker, sandwich, or hybrid technique with 3D mesh? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia is the most common complication after stoma formation with an incidence that approaches 50% at 2 years postoperatively. In the last decade, different approaches of minimally invasive procedures have been proposed for the treatment of parastomal hernia. Nevertheless, the superiority of one technique over the others remains still unclear. Our objective was to update and systematically analyze current state of research concerning the postoperative outcomes of the four most prevalent minimally invasive techniques.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of three databases (Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar) was undertaken for articles published from January 2015 to November 2022. Fifteen studies from a previous meta-analysis on the topic were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies incorporating 1289 total patients were deemed eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. The keyhole technique was associated with the highest incidence of postoperative complications and recurrences (31.3% and 24.1%, respectively), followed by the Sugarbaker technique (27.6% and 9%, respectively). Operative time was among the lowest in patients operated with the 3D mesh technique, while patients undergoing the keyhole technique experienced the shortest cumulative length of hospital stay (6 days).

CONCLUSION

Each technique demonstrates a unique profile of effectiveness offset by the propensity towards developing postoperative complications. While no conclusive evidence on the optimal technique exist to date, newer minimally invasive techniques show promising results, albeit based on limited data. The future of parastomal hernia repair seems to rely on a highly individualized approach, tailored to the distinctive characteristics of both the hernia and the patient.

Parastomal hernia prevention with permanent mesh in end colostomy: failure with late follow-up of cohorts in three randomized trials

PURPOSE

Short-term results have been reported regarding parastomal hernia (PH) prevention with a permanent mesh. Long-term results are scarce. The objective was to assess the long-term PH occurrence after a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh.

METHODS

Long-term data of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected. The primary outcome was the detection of PH based exclusively on a radiological diagnosis by computed tomography (CT) performed during the long-term follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for the comparison of time to diagnosis of PH according to the presence of mesh vs. no-mesh and the technique of mesh insertion: open retromuscular, laparoscopic keyhole, and laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker.

RESULTS

We studied 121 patients (87 men, median age 70 years), 82 (67.8%) of which developed a PH. The median overall length of follow-up was 48.5 months [interquartile range (IQR) 14.4-104.9], with a median time until PH diagnosis of 17.7 months (IQR 9.3-49.0). The survival analysis did not show significant differences in the time to development of a PH according to the presence or absence of a prophylactic mesh neither in the overall study population (log-rank, P = 0.094) nor in the groups of each technique of mesh insertion, although according to the surgical technique, a higher reduction in the appearance of PH for the open retromuscular technique was found (log-rank, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the long-term follow-up placement of a non-absorbable synthetic prophylactic mesh in the context of an elective end colostomy does not seem effective for preventing PH.

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.

Parastomal hernias after cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: surgical treatment and the use of prophylactic mesh: a systematic review

Background

Parastomal hernia after ileal conduit urinary diversion is an underestimated and undertreated clinical entity, which heavily impairs patients’ quality of life due to symptoms of pain, leakage, application or skin problems. As for all gastrointestinal stomata the best surgical repair technique has yet to be determined. Thereby, surgery for ileal conduit parastomal hernias poses some specific perioperative challenges. This review aims to give an overview of current evidence on the surgical treatment of parastomal hernia after cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion, and on the use of prophylactic mesh at index surgery in its prevention.

Methods

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA-guidelines. The electronic databases Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched. Studies were included if they presented postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgical treatment of parastomal hernia at the ileal conduit site, irrespective of the technique used. A search was performed to identify additional studies on prophylactic mesh in the prevention of ileal conduit parastomal hernia, that were not identified by the initial search.

Results

Eight retrospective case-series were included for analysis, reporting different surgical techniques. If reported, highest complication rate was 45%. Recurrence rates varied highly, ranging from 0 to 80%. Notably, lower recurrence rates were reported in studies with shorter follow-up. Overall, available data suggest significant morbidity after the surgical treatment of ileal conduit parastomal hernias. Data from five conference abstracts on the matter were retrieved, and systematically reported. Regarding prophylactic mesh in the prevention of ileal conduit parastomal hernia, 5 communications were identified. All of them used keyhole mesh in a retromuscular position, and reported on favorable results in the mesh group without an increase in mesh-related complications.

Conclusion

Data on the surgical treatment of ileal conduit parastomal hernias and the use of prophylactic mesh in its prevention is scarce. Given the specific perioperative challenges and the paucity of reported results, more high-quality evidence is needed to determine the optimal treatment of this specific surgical problem. Initial results on the use of prophylactic mesh in the prevention of ileal conduit parastomal hernias seem promising.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-022-01509-y.