Profilaxis de la hernia paraestomal mediante malla de polipropileno en espacio preperitoneal

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.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Mesh in End-Colostomy Construction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia is a very common complication after colostomy, especially end-colostomy. It is unclear whether prophylactic placement of mesh at the time of stoma formation could prevent parastomal hernia formation after surgery for rectal cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh in end-colostomy construction.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched, covering records entered from their inception to September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stoma with mesh to stoma without mesh after surgery for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of parastomal hernia. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were obtained using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six RCTs containing 309 patients were included. Parastomal hernia occurred in 24.4 % (38 of 156) of patients with mesh and 50.3 % (77 of 153) of patients without mesh. Meta-analysis showed a lower incidence of parastomal hernia (RR, 0.42; 95 % CI 0.22-0.82) and reoperation related to parastomal hernia (RR, 0.23; 95 % CI 0.06-0.89) in patients with mesh. Stoma-related morbidity was similar between mesh group and non-mesh group (RR, 0.65; 95 % CI 0.33-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic placement of a mesh at the time of a stoma formation seems to be associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia and reoperation related to parastomal hernia after surgery for rectal cancer, but not the rate of stoma-related morbidity. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity among the studies.