Bioprosthetic mesh reinforcement during temporary stoma closure decreases the rate of incisional hernia: A blinded, case-matched study in 94 patients with rectal cancer

Long-term outcome of prophylactic biosynthetic mesh reinforcement at the time of loop ileostomy reversal for colorectal cancer- results of a case-matched study

PURPOSE

Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) is a frequent complication following ileostomy closure but can be potentially decreased by prophylactic mesh reinforcement. The aim was to assess if the use of a slowly absorbable biosynthetic mesh at the time of ileostomy reversal could reduce the incidence of SSIH.

METHODS

Outcomes of consecutive patients receiving prophylactic biosynthetic mesh (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate Phasix®, BD) implantation at the time of ileostomy reversal for colorectal cancer were prospectively collected in the Club Hernie database. Outcomes were compared with those of matched patients from a historical cohort of patients undergoing ileostomy reversal without mesh augmentation.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients underwent ileostomy reversal: 50 with biosynthetic mesh augmentation (mesh group) and 50 with standard fascial closure without mesh (control group). Mesh augmentation did not increase the operating time (mesh group 49.8 min vs. control group 60.5 min, p < 0.01), the incidence of surgical site infection (mesh group 4% vs. control group 6%, p = 1) or the length of hospital stay (mesh group 5 days vs. control group 6 days, p = 0.28). After a mean follow-up of 4 years, the rate of SSIH, diagnosed by CT scan, was significantly lower in the mesh group (mesh group 8% vs. control group 24%, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of a slowly absorbable biosynthetic mesh at the time of ileostomy reversal for colorectal cancer was safe and effective in reducing the rate of SSIH without increasing surgical site infection.

From Diversion to Permanence: Trends in Ostomy Creation in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Rectal cancer surgery has undergone transformative advancements over the past few decades, evolving from radical, high-morbidity procedures to more refined techniques focused on both oncological outcomes and the preservation of anorectal function. This review provides a brief overview of the history of rectal cancer surgery, highlighting key innovations in imaging, neoadjuvant therapy, and minimally invasive techniques that have significantly reduced the need for permanent and temporary ostomies. Additionally, the current indications for both permanent and temporary ostomies are reviewed, including a discussion of associated complications, such as non-reversal, parastomal hernias, stomal prolapse, stenosis, and skin-related issues, along with strategies and techniques to mitigate these complications. This review underscores the importance of ongoing innovation and individualized surgical planning to enhance patient outcomes in rectal cancer care by understanding the historical context, contemporary practices, and associated challenges.

SafeHeal Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device evaluation (SAFE-2) pivotal study: an international randomized controlled study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device

AIM

Although proximal faecal diversion is standard of care to protect patients with high-risk colorectal anastomoses against septic complications of anastomotic leakage, it is associated with significant morbidity. The Colovac device (CD) is an intraluminal bypass device intended to avoid stoma creation in patients undergoing low anterior resection. A preliminary study (SAFE-1) completed in three European centres demonstrated 100% protection of colorectal anastomoses in 15 patients, as evidenced by the absence of faeces below the CD. This phase III trial (SAFE-2) aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the CD in a larger cohort of patients undergoing curative rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

SAFE-2 is a pivotal, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the CD arm or the diverting loop ileostomy arm, with a recruitment target of 342 patients. The co-primary endpoints are the occurrence of major postoperative complications within 12 months of index surgery and the effectiveness of the CD in reducing stoma creation rates. Data regarding quality of life and patient's acceptance and tolerance of the device will be collected.

DISCUSSION

SAFE-2 is a multicentre randomized, control trial assessing the efficacy and the safety of the CD in protecting low colorectal anastomoses created during oncological resection relative to standard diverting loop ileostomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05010850.

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.

Prevention of incisional hernia with retrorectus synthetic mesh versus biological mesh following loop ileostomy closure (Preloop trial)

BACKGROUND

The rate of incisional hernia after closure of a temporary loop ileostomy is significant. Synthetic meshes are still commonly avoided in contaminated wounds. The Preloop trial was a multicentre RCT designed to evaluate the benefits of synthetic mesh in incisional hernia prevention, and its safety for use in a contaminated surgical site compared with biological mesh.

METHODS

Study patients who underwent closure of a loop ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer were assigned to receive either retrorectus synthetic or biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia. The primary outcomes were surgical-site infections within 30 days, and clinical or radiological incisional hernia incidence at 10 months. Secondary outcomes were reoperation rate, operating time, duration of hospital stay, other complications within 30 days of surgery, 5-year quality of life measured by RAND-36, and incisional hernia incidence within 5 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Between November 2018 and September 2021, 102 patients were randomised, of whom 97 received the intended allocation. At 10-month follow-up, 90 patients had undergone clinical evaluation and 88 radiological evaluation. One patient in each group (2 per cent) had a clinical diagnosis of incisional hernia (P = 0.950) and one further patient in each group had a CT-confirmed incisional hernia (P = 0.949). The number of other complications, reoperation rate, operating time, and duration of hospital stay did not differ between the study groups.

CONCLUSION

Synthetic mesh appeared comparable to biological mesh in efficacy and safety for incisional hernia prevention at the time of loop ileostomy closure.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03445936 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

The utilization of an absorbable mesh after ostomy reversal does not decrease incisional hernia rates

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ostomy reversal hernias are common and can create strain on the healthcare system. There is little literature evaluating the utilization of absorbable mesh following ostomy reversal. The effect on subsequent hernia rates at our institution has not been evaluated. We examine if the addition of absorbable mesh decreases the postoperative hernia rate in our patient population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all ileostomy and colostomy reversals. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether an absorbable mesh was used at ostomy closure or not.

RESULTS

Hernia recurrence rates were lower in the group that had mesh reinforcement (8.96%) vs the group that did not receive a mesh (14.8%) though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.233).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of an absorbable biosynthetic mesh did not alter the rate of incisional hernia rates following ostomy reversal in our cohort of patients.

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.

Prophylactic effect of retromuscular mesh placement during loop ileostomy closure on incisional hernia incidence-a multicentre randomised patient- and observer-blind trial (P.E.L.I.O.N trial)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication following loop ileostomy reversal. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, loss of health-related quality of life and costs and warrant the investigation of prophylactic measures. Prophylactic mesh implantation at the time of surgical stoma reversal has shown to be a promising and safe method to prevent incisional hernias in this setting. However, the efficacy of this method has not yet been investigated in a large multicentre randomised-controlled trial (RCT) with adequate external validity. The P.E.L.I.O.N. trial will evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after loop ileostomy closure in decreasing the rate of incisional hernia versus standard closure alone.

METHODS

P.E.L.I.O.N. is a multicentre, patient- and observer-blind RCT. Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure will undergo intraoperative 1:1 randomisation into either abdominal wall closure with a continuous slowly absorbable suture in small-stitch technique without mesh reinforcement (control group) or abdominal wall closure with an additional reinforcement with a retromuscular non-absorbable, macro-pore (pore size ≥ 1000 μm or effective porosity >0%) light-weight monofilament or mixed structure mesh. A total of 304 patients (152 per group) will need to be randomised in the study. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,014 patients are expected to be screened for eligibility in order to recruit the necessary number of patients. The primary endpoint will be the frequency of incision hernias within 24 months according to the European Hernia Society definition. Secondary endpoints will be the frequency of surgical site occurrences (including surgical site infections, wound seromas and hematomas, and enterocutaneous fistulas), postoperative pain, the number of revision surgeries and health-related quality of life. Safety will be assessed by measuring postoperative complications ≥ grade 3 according to the Dindo-Clavien classification.

DISCUSSION

Depending on the results of the P.E.L.I.O.N. trial, prophylactic mesh implantation could become the new standard for loop ileostomy reversal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00027921, U1111-1273-4657.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery

BACKGROUND

Stoma closure is a widely performed surgical procedure, with 6295 undertaken in England in 2018 alone. This procedure is associated with significant complications; incisional hernias are the most severe, occurring in 30% of patients. Complications place considerable financial burden on the NHS; hernia costs are estimated at GBP 114 million annually. As recent evidence (ROCSS, 2020) found that prophylactic meshes significantly reduce rates of incisional hernias following stoma closure surgery, an evaluation of this intervention vs. standard procedure is essential.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted using data from the ROCSS prospective multi-centre trial, which followed 790 patients, randomly assigned to mesh closure (n = 394) and standard closure (n = 396). Quality of life was assessed using mean EQ-5D-3L scores from the trial, and costs in GBP using UK-based sources over a 2-year time horizon.

RESULTS

The CUA yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 128,356.25 per QALY. Additionally, three univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate an increased benefit with mesh prophylaxis, but at an increased cost. Although the intervention is cost-ineffective and greater than the ICER threshold of GBP 30,000/QALY (NICE), further investigation into mesh prophylaxis for at risk population groups is needed.

Retrorectus mesh reinforcement of ileostomy site fascial closure: stoma closure and reinforcement (SCAR) trial phase I/II results

PURPOSE

Loop ileostomy (LI) is commonly employed during colorectal surgeries to reduce the consequences of anastomotic leak. Unfortunately, LI is associated with a 10-30% incisional hernia (IH) rate after closure. We hypothesized that prophylactic mesh reinforcement during LI takedown would safely prevent subsequent IH formation.

METHODS

This single-center, phase I/II prospective study evaluated adult patients undergoing LI closure after left-sided colorectal cancer procedures. After LI closure, the posterior rectus sheath was mobilized and reapproximated with absorbable suture. A reduced-weight, macroporous, polypropylene mesh (Softmesh, BD) was placed in the retrorectus position to allow 3 cm of overlap and secured with fibrin sealant. The anterior fascia was closed with slowly absorbable suture. CT images obtained for cancer surveillance were reviewed by a radiologist blinded to the study intervention to evaluate for evidence of hernia or surgical site occurrence (SSO).

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included with mean defect and mesh sizes of 11.2 cm² and 64.2 cm², respectively. Mean operative time for LI takedown and mesh augmented closure was 84 min with mesh implantation time being 16.4 min. Two patients were readmitted within 30 days for ileus, no patient required procedural intervention. Over a mean follow-up period of 20 ± 7 months, no SSO or hernias were observed clinically or on CT imaging.

CONCLUSION

In our small series, retromuscular mesh reinforcement of LI closure appears feasible, safe and effective. This mesh reinforcement approach should be further investigated to evaluate its long-term effectiveness.

Incidence and risk factors of delayed development for stoma site incisional hernia after ileostomy closure in patients undergoing colorectal surgery with temporary ileostomy

BACKGROUND

Stoma site incisional hernias after ileostomy closure are complex hernias that can be associated with abdominal pain, discomfort, and a diminished quality of life. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) following temporary ileostomy reversal in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, and the risk factors associated with its development.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-centre, cohort study of patients undergoing ileostomy reversal between January 2010 and December 2016. Comorbidities, operative characteristics, comparison between early and late ileostomy closure and postoperative complications were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 202 consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated (median follow-up 46 months; range: 12-109). Stoma site incisional hernia occurred in 23% of patients (n = 47), diagnosed by physical examination or imaging tests. The reasons for the primary surgery were colorectal cancer (n = 141, 69.8%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 14, 6.9%), emergency surgery (n = 35, 17.3%), and other conditions (n = 12, 5.9%). Secondary outcomes: a statistically significant risk factors for developing an IH was obesity (higher BMI) (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05-1.26) p = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

23% of patients developed surgical site IH, a higher BMI being the only risk factor found to be statistically significant in the development of an incisional hernia.

Evaluation of the SafeHeal Colovac+ Anastomosis Protection Device: A Preclinical Study

BackgroundThe protective ostomy is the current standard of care to protect a low colorectal anastomosis from leakage, but exposes patients to complications requiring an alternative strategy. The Colovac+ is a vacuum-based intraluminal bypass device designed to shield the anastomosis from fecal content, preventing the clinical outcomes of anastomotic leakage. The objective of this study was to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, safety, and technical feasibility of the Colovac+ in a porcine model. Methods: Twelve pigs received a colorectal anastomosis with Colovac+ implantation. The device was left in situ for 10 days and then retrieved endoscopically. Six pigs were to be sacrificed immediately after device retrieval and the other 6 were to be sacrificed on day 38. Clinical, endoscopic, and histopathological examinations were performed to evaluate the following endpoints: prevention of contact between the anastomosis and fecal content, device migration, feasibility of the implantation and retrieval procedure, collateral damage to the colonic wall, colon healing after device retrieval, and systemic toxicity related to the device. Results: Eleven pigs completed the study. One pig died prematurely due to a surgical complication unrelated to the device (bladder damage with uroperitoneum). There was no evidence of contact between the anastomosis and fecal content, none of the pigs developed symptomatic anastomotic leakage, there were no significant device migrations, and there was no evidence of systemic toxicity. Colovac+ implantation was easily performed in all cases except 1 (due to an inappropriate lubricant). Colovac+ retrieval was achieved successfully in all cases. Postretrieval examinations on day 10 revealed ulcerations at the anchoring site in 4 cases indicating mechanical damage caused by the stent. However, in the recovery group, no ulcerations were observed on day 38, and the colonic wall had properly healed in all animals. Conclusions: The Colovac+ is a technically feasible, safe, and efficient device for the protection of a colorectal anastomosis in a porcine model. The device holds promise for clinical use and warrants further research.

An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest.

METHODS

Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I² 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I² 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I² 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I² 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I² 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I² 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24).

CONCLUSION

Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.

PROphylactic MESH (PROMESH) for stoma closure: does it reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? Protocol for a triple-blinded randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Application of a prophylactic mesh during stoma closure was shown to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure. Our objective is to provide high quality evidence to validate this finding.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be a randomised controlled triple-blinded superiority parallel monocentric trial. Patients undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure after surgery for digestive cancer will be eligible for inclusion. Patients allergic to the mesh, immunosuppressed or refusing to participate will be excluded. Randomisation will be performed based on a 1:1 allocation ratio between stoma closure with application of a non-absorbable mesh in the sublay position (intervention) and stoma closure without a mesh (control). The primary outcome will be the 1-year incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure, determined clinically and by CT. Secondary outcomes will be the 31-day incidence of surgical site infection and the modified Carolinas Comfort Scale. Patients, radiologists and investigators performing the assessment at 1 year will be blinded for the allocated study group. Analysis will be performed in intention-to-treat. The trial will include 68 patients (34 with mesh, 34 without mesh).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The present randomised controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04510558) and was accepted by the local ethic committee (Geneva, Switzerland: CCER 2021-00053). The results will be presented at national and international congresses in the fields of colorectal surgery and general surgery, and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

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

PURPOSE

To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123-0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462-1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78-1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64-1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846-3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD - 0.579,95% CI - 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119-0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified.

A new anterior approach to parastomal hernia repair (PHR) with linear stapler suture: A case report

Introduction

Parastomal hernia is a type of incisional hernia occurring in abdominal integuments in the vicinity of a stoma. The best surgical approach for PSH remains controversial. Most studies report short follow-up time after surgery and a low number of cases to allow conclusions. Actually, we don't have a relevant recommendation about an optimal surgical technique or the most effective mesh for PSH repair.

Presentation of the case

Once packaged the latero-lateral mechanical anastomosis to restore the continuity of the intestinal tract of the patient, an adequate disinfection of trough of the stoma was done. The lateral and medial margins of the defect are then transposed towards each other and kept side by side with a gripper; a 60 mm tristaple linear stapler was placed, incorporating both edges and the charge is fired to obtain a perfect synthesis of the retromuscular plane.

Discussion

In the literature has been described several surgical techniques for its repair: suture repair, relocation, mesh-based technique with open or laparoscopic approach. Both, the simple corrective surgery of Thorlakson in 1965 and the use of the peritoneomuscular flap for closing the defect, suggested by Bewes, led to high incidence of recurrence. An important reduction in the rate of parastomal hernia derives also from the mesh reinforcement of the stoma trephine.

Conclusion

The authors suggest that this technique should be help the surgeons to repair parastomal hernia in patients with multiple risk factors to develop a recurrence of parastomal hernia.

•

The best surgical approach for Parastomal Hernia repair (PSH) remains controversial.

•

Causes that predispose to the development of incisional hernia are multiple, such as obesity and diabetes.

•

This technique may help the surgeons to repair the PSH in patients with risk factors to develop a recurrence after surgery.

Closure of stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of the closure of temporary stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Studies comparing the reversal of stoma with and without prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH), surgical site infection (SSI), operative time, seroma formation, haematoma formation, bowel obstruction, anastomosis leak, length of hospital stay (LOS) and secondary operation to repair the SSIH were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Six comparative studies reporting a total of 1683 patients who underwent closure of stoma with (n = 669) or without (n = 1014) prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Use of mesh was associated with a significantly lower risk of SSIH (OR 0.22, P = 0.003) and need for surgical intervention to repair SSIH (OR 0.32, P = 0.04) compared with no use of mesh. However, it was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD 47.78, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in SSI (OR 1.09, P = 0.59), bowel obstruction (OR 1.11, P = 0.74), seroma formation (OR 2.86, P = 0.19), anastomosis leak (OR 1.60, P = 0.15), haematoma formation (OR 1.25, P = 0.75) or LOS (MD - 0.45, P = 0.31) between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during the closure of temporary stoma may significantly reduce the risk of SSIH and surgical intervention to repair the hernia without increasing the risk of SSI or other morbidities. However, it may increase the procedure time. Future higher-quality randomised evidence is required.

Stoma closure and reinforcement (SCAR): A study protocol for a pilot trial

A quality metric for centers performing rectal cancer surgery is a high percentage of sphincter sparing procedures. These procedures often involve temporary bowel diversion to minimize the complications of an anastomotic leak. The most common strategy is a diverting loop ileostomy which is then closed after completion of adjuvant therapy or the patient recovers from surgery. Loop ileostomy is not without complications and the closure is complicated by a one in three chance of incisional hernia development. Strategies to prevent this problem have been designed using a variety of techniques with and without mesh placement. This proposed pilot study will test the safety and efficacy of a novel stoma closure technique involving permanent mesh in the retro rectus position during ileostomy closure. The study will prospectively follow 20 patients undergoing ileostomy closure using this technique and evaluate for safety of the procedure, quality of life, and feasibility for a larger randomized controlled trial. Patients will be followed post procedurally and evaluated for 30-day complications, as well as followed up with routine cancer surveillance computed tomography every 6 months in which the presence of stoma site incisional hernias will be evaluated. The results of this pilot study will inform the design of a multiple center, blinded randomized controlled trial to evaluate the utility of permanent mesh placement to decrease the incidence of prior stoma site incisional hernias.

Intraluminal flexible sheath for the protection of low anastomosis after anterior resection: results from a First-In-Human trial on 15 patients

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning ostomy is commonly used to protect patients from anastomotic leakage complications after low anterior resection, but is fraught with its own deleterious effects. This first-in-human study examines the safety and preliminary efficacy of Colovac, an anastomosis protection device. The Colovac consists of a flexible bypass sheath, placed in the lumen of colon and anchored above the anastomosis using a vacuum stent.

METHODS

15 patients underwent anterior resection (AR) with anastomosis protection by Colovac at 3 European centers. After 14 days, the anastomosis integrity was examined by CT scan and endoscopy. The device was then endoscopically removed. Data regarding demographics, surgical details, 30 day post-operative complications, and patient satisfaction were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

15 patients (10 male) underwent laparoscopic AR with Colovac placement. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy was administered to 54% of patients. Device placement was uneventful in all patients with a median duration of 7 min and placement was judged as easy or very easy in 93% of the cases. Patients did not report major discomfort during the 14 days. Endoscopic removal (10 min) was judged as easy or very easy in 87% of the cases. Absence of feces below the Colovac anchoring site was observed in 100% of the cases. 4 anastomotic leakages were observed (including 3 device migrations). Overall 5 patients (33%) required a planned stoma creation. At 3 months, 1 had already been closed.

CONCLUSION

Colovac provides a minimally invasive protection of the anastomosis during the healing process by avoiding the need for a diverting ostomy for two-thirds of patients who will not experience anastomotic complications and allowing safe conversion to the standard of care for patients requiring extended anastomotic protection. A larger study is ongoing to confirm these results.

Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after temporary loop ileostomy closure: choosing candidates for prophylactic mesh placement

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to identify the incisional hernia rate after temporary loop ileostomy closure. Secondary outcomes were determining the risk factors linked to this incisional hernia, which could improve the patient selection for mesh prophylaxis.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients with temporary loop ileostomy reversal through a peristomal incision from 1st January 2011 to 1st January 2017 at our centre. Data were extracted from electronic clinical records: baseline patient characteristics, surgical factors and postoperative events. CT scans performed during follow-up were precisely analysed. Survival analysis was applied to identify risk factors for hernia development.

RESULTS

129 patients were analysed of whom 15 (11.6%) developed an incisional hernia at previous ileostomy site. The median time for incisional hernia development was 11 months (IQR = 7-21) and the median follow-up time was 37 months (IQR = 22-57). The identified patient risk factors for hernia development in survival analysis were female sex, older age, higher Body Mass Index, clinically significant parastomal hernia, clinically detectable midline incisional hernia and major postoperative complications ranked as Clavien-Dindo grade III and IV.

CONCLUSIONS

Incisional hernia after temporary loop ileostomy is a relevant problem that affects at least one in every ten patients. The previously cited risk factors might favour its development, therefore the use of a prophylactic mesh should be considered in those high-risk patients.

Prophylactic mesh placement to avoid incisional hernias after stoma reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To provide an overview of the available literature on prevention of incisional hernias after stoma reversal, with the use of prophylactic meshes.

Methods

A literature search of Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Search terms for stoma, enterostomy, mesh, prophylaxis and hernia were used. Search was updated to December 31th 2018. No time limitations were used, while English, Geman, Dutch and French were used as language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia formation after stoma reversal. Secondary outcomes were mesh-related complications. Data on study design, sample size, patient characteristics, stoma and mesh characteristics, duration of follow-up and outcomes were extracted from the included articles.

Results

A number of 241 articles were identified and three studies with 536 patients were included. A prophylactic mesh was placed in 168 patients to prevent incisional hernias after stoma reversal. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 21 months. The risk of incisional hernia in case of prophylactic mesh placement was significantly lower in comparison to no mesh placement (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04–0.27, p < 0.001, I² = 0%, CI 0–91.40%). No differences in surgical site infections were detected between the groups.

Conclusions

The use of a prophylactic mesh seems to reduce the risk on incisional hernias after stoma reversal and therefore mesh reinforcement should be considered after stoma reversal.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10029-019-01996-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessment of a Vacuum-Based Intra-Colonic Diverting Device: A Preclinical Study

Purpose. Anastomotic leak is the main complication after low colorectal anastomosis. Defunctioning ileostomy is therefore recommended, which carries its own morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the technical feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of a vacuum-based intra-colonic diverting device (Colovac) to reduce the impact of anastomotic leak. Methods. This prospective preclinical study was conducted on living swine. The device was surgically inserted transanally, proximal to a colorectal anastomosis, and removed endoscopically at day 14. Then, open surgery was performed to look for deep sepsis and/or anastomotic leak, and the remaining colorectal anastomosis was resected for histopathological analysis. The endpoints were successful insertion and delivery of the device, postoperative morbidity, successful maintaining of the device, and absence of feces spillage and/or abscess in the abdominal cavity. Results. The Colovac was inserted in 22 swine. Stent migration occurred in 7 of the first 8 specimens, leading to natural expulsion of the device. After diet adaptation, a subsequent group of 14 swine was undertaken, of which 13 did not show any sign of migration post-implantation. Disconnection of the suction drain occurred in 1 case, leading to device expulsion on day 10. Colovac retrieval was achieved successfully in 13 cases. The endoscopic assessment of the anchorage site showed limited mucosal injury, whereas histopathological findings revealed mild hyperplasia. One swine died prematurely of postoperative colonic ischemia. Conclusion. This new device appears to be safe in the swine model and may prevent peritonitis or abscess due to colorectal anastomotic leak.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of incisional hernia post-reversal of ileostomy

PURPOSE

Incisional hernia following closure of loop ileostomy is a common problem. Assessment of the proportion of this complication is limited by small sample size and inconsistent reporting. The aim of this review was to provide an estimate of the proportion of incisional hernia following closure of loop ileostomy according to clinical and radiological diagnostic criteria and to investigate the association of bibliometric and study quality parameters with reported proportion.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ISRCTN Registry and Open Grey from 2000 onwards was performed according to PRISMA standards. Reporting on the type of stoma and mesh reinforcement after closure was mandatory for inclusion, whereas studies on paediatric populations were excluded. Fixed effect or random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportion estimates. Meta-regression models were formed to explore potential heterogeneity.

RESULTS

42 studies with 7166 patients were included. The pooled estimate of the proportion of incisional hernia after ileostomy closure was 6.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 4.4-8.3%). Proportion estimates for higher quality studies and studies reporting on incisional hernia as primary outcome were 9.0% (95% CI 6.3-12.7%) and 13.1% (95% CI 8.8-19.1%). Significant between-study heterogeneity was identified (P < 0.001, I² = 87%) and the likelihood of publication bias was high (P = 0.028). Mixed effects regression showed that both year of publication (P = 0.034, Q = 4.484, df = 1.000) and defining hernia as a primary outcome (Q = 20.298, P < 0.001) were related to effect size. Method of follow-up and quality of the studies affected the proportion.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of incisional hernia at ileostomy closure site is estimated at 6.1%. Reporting incisional hernia as primary or secondary outcome, the method of diagnosis, the year of publication and methodological quality are associated with reported proportion.

Obesity is a significant risk factor for ileostomy site incisional hernia following reversal

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia following ileostomy reversal can cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life, and burden on the healthcare system. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of ileostomy site incisional hernia following reversal and to identify possible risk factors for its development.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive patients who underwent ileostomy reversal between November 1999 to February 2015 by a single surgeon. Primary outcome analysed was incisional hernia occurrence at the previous stoma site.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-four ileostomy reversals were identified. The most common indication for ileostomy construction was colorectal cancer, followed by inflammatory bowel disease and diverticulosis. The stomas were either a loop (75%), end-loop (24%) or end ileostomy (1%). The mean time interval from the stoma creation to reversal was 6.1 months (range 2-69, SD 7.1). After a mean follow-up of 30.7 months (range 10-89, SD 15.1), 12 patients (5%) developed a hernia at the previous stoma. The mean time for hernia occurrence was 25.2 months (range 3-126, SD 32). Patients who developed ileostomy site incisional hernia were more likely to have a higher body mass index (28.1 versus 26.3, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Although we found a lower rate of incisional hernias after reversal of ileostomies than reported elsewhere in the literature, it remains a significant clinical problem. Obesity is a significant risk factor for ileostomy-site incisional hernia.

Incidence of and risk factors for incisional hernia after closure of temporary ileostomy for colorectal malignancy

PURPOSE

Incisional hernia is a major complication after stoma closure and can cause uncomfortable symptoms. In this study, we evaluated the risk factors for hernia formation with the aim of reducing the incidence of incisional hernia.

METHODS

A total of 134 oncology patients underwent closure of a temporary loop ileostomy between May 2004 and December 2013. The incidence of incisional hernia was determined by routine follow-up computed tomography scanning every 6 months. The relationships between patients' characteristics, including age, sex, obesity, diabetes mellitus, surgical site infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, hypoalbuminemia, smoking, and presence of a midline hernia and the occurrence of incisional hernia were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 47 months (range 8-130). Hernias occurred in 23.9% of patients (32/134). The median time to detection of hernias was 8 months (range 2-39). The Chi-squared test revealed significant differences in obesity (P = 0.0003), hypertension (P = 0.0057), and incisional hernia history (P = 0.0000) between patients with and without incisional hernia. Multivariable analysis and univariate analysis revealed that hypertension and the presence of midline incisional hernia were risk factors for incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertension and the presence of a midline incisional hernia were the major risk factors for incisional hernia after loop ileostomy closure. These risk factors can be addressed before planning surgery.

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.

Incidence, risk factors and prevention of stoma site incisional hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Stoma reversal might lead to a stoma site incisional hernia. Recently, prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the stoma site has gained increased attention, supporting the need for accurate data on the incidence of and risk factors for stoma site incisional hernia and to identify high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to assess incidence, risk factors and prevention of stoma site incisional hernias.

METHOD

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases were searched. Studies reporting the incidence of stoma site incisional hernia after stoma reversal were included. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data on incidence, risk factors and prophylactic mesh reinforcement were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 1440 articles found, 33 studies comprising 4679 reversals were included. The overall incidence of incisional hernia was 6.5% [range 0%-38%, median follow-up 27.5 (17.54-36) months]. Eleven studies assessed stoma site incisional hernia as the primary end-point, showing an incidence of 17.7% [range 1.7%-36.1%, median follow-up 28 (15.25-51.70) months]. Body mass index, diabetes and surgery for malignant disease were found to be independent risk factors, as derived from eight studies. Two retrospective comparative cohort studies showed significantly lower rates of stoma site incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement compared with nonmesh controls [6.4% vs 36.1% (P = 0.001); 3% vs 19% (P = 0.04)].

CONCLUSION

Stoma site incisional hernia should not be underestimated as a long-term problem. Body mass index, diabetes and malignancy seem to be potential risk factors. Currently, limited data are available on the outcomes of prophylactic mesh reinforcement to prevent stoma site incisional hernia.

Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure

Background

Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterize the stage of innovation for biological mesh devices used during complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of published and ongoing studies between January 2000 and September 2017. Eligible studies were those where a biological mesh was used to support fascial closure, either prophylactically after midline laparotomy, or for reinforcement after repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the GRADE criteria for study quality.

Results

Thirty‐five studies including 2681 patients were included. Four studies considered mesh prophylaxis, 23 considered hernia repair, and eight reported on both. There was one published randomized trial (IDEAL stage 3), none of which was of high quality; the others were non‐randomized studies (IDEAL stage 2a). A detailed description of surgical technique was provided in most studies (27 of 35); however, no study reported outcomes according to the European Hernia Society consensus statement and only two described quality control of surgical technique during the study. From 21 ongoing randomized trials and observational studies, 11 considered repair of incisional hernia and 10 considered prophylaxis (seven in elective settings).

Conclusion

The evidence base for biological mesh is limited, and better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although results of ongoing trials over the next decade will improve the evidence base, further study is required in the emergency and contaminated settings.

Stomal Closure: Strategies to Prevent Incisional Hernia

Incisional hernias following ostomy reversal occur frequently. Incisional hernias at the site of a previous stoma closure can cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life, lead to life-threatening hernia incarceration or strangulation and result in a significant financial burden on health care systems Despite this, the evidence base on the subject is limited. Many recognised risk factors for the development of incisional hernia following ostomy reversal are related to patient factors such as age, malignancy, diabetes, COPD, hypertension and obesity, and are not easily correctable. There is a limited amount of evidence to suggest that prophylactic mesh reinforcement may be of benefit to reduce the post stoma closure incisional hernia rate but a further large scale randomised controlled trial is due to report in the near future. There appears to be weak evidence to suggest that surgeons should favour circular, or "purse-string" closure of the skin following stoma closure in order to reduce the risk of SSI, which in turn may reduce incisional hernia formation. There remains the need for further evidence in relation to suture technique, skin closure techniques, mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic prescription focusing on incisional hernia development as an outcome measure. Within this review, we discuss in detail the evidence base for the risk factors for the development of, and the strategies to prevent ostomy reversal site incisional hernias.

Incidence of and risk factors for stoma-site incisional herniation after reversal

Background

Stoma reversal is often considered a straightforward procedure with low short‐term complication rates. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of incisional hernia following stoma reversal and identify risk factors for its development.

Methods

This was an observational study of consecutive patients who underwent stoma reversal between 2009 and 2015 at a teaching hospital. Patients followed for at least 12 months were eligible. The primary outcome was the development of incisional hernia at the previous stoma site. Independent risk factors were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

After a median follow‐up of 24 (range 12–89) months, 110 of 318 included patients (34·6 per cent) developed an incisional hernia at the previous stoma site. In 85 (77·3 per cent) the hernia was symptomatic, and 72 patients (65·5 per cent) underwent surgical correction. Higher BMI (odds ratio (OR) 1·12, 95 per cent c.i. 1·04 to 1·21), stoma prolapse (OR 3·27, 1·04 to 10·27), parastomal hernia (OR 5·08, 1·30 to 19·85) and hypertension (OR 2·52, 1·14 to 5·54) were identified as independent risk factors for the development of incisional hernia at the previous stoma site. In addition, the risk of incisional hernia was greater in patients with underlying malignant disease who had undergone a colostomy than in those who had had an ileostomy (OR 5·05, 2·28 to 11·23).

Conclusion

Incisional hernia of the previous stoma site was common and frequently required surgical correction. Higher BMI, reversal of colostomy in patients with an underlying malignancy, stoma prolapse, parastomal hernia and hypertension were identified as independent risk factors.

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.

Prophylactic placement of permanent synthetic mesh at the time of ostomy closure prevents formation of incisional hernias

BACKGROUND

Reversal of an enterostomy results in a high rate of incisional hernia at the ostomy site. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the fascial defect is typically not considered due to the contaminated nature of the case. We present the outcomes of a series of prophylactic mesh reinforcements with retromuscular, large-pore polypropylene at the time of enterostomy reversal.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all ostomy reversals was performed. All cases with placement of synthetic mesh reinforcement were identified from a prospectively maintained, hernia database. Primary end points were surgical site occurrence, surgical site infection, and hernia occurrence.

RESULTS

Ostomy reversal was performed in 359 patients; 91 were reinforced with mesh and 268 without mesh. Colostomy reversal was performed in 56.5% and ileostomy in 43.5%. The mesh group had a greater body mass index and a greater incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but groups were otherwise similar. A midline incisional hernia was present in 45% of the mesh group vs 4.5% in the controls. Incidence of surgical site occurrence and surgical site infection were similar for mesh and control groups (21 vs 22.8%; P = .82 and 20 vs 19.8%; P = 1.000, respectively). Superficial surgical site infection was less with mesh (8 vs 16.4%; P = .039). Incidence of a hernia developing at the stoma site was decreased markedly with mesh (1% vs 17.2%; P < .001), as was the occurrence of a midline hernia (6% vs 19%; P = .004). Mesh was placed across the midline prophylactically in 29.7% of cases, which decreased midline hernia formation from 24.1% to 4% (P = .019).

CONCLUSION

Retromuscular placement of permanent synthetic mesh at the time of enterostomy reversal is effective in preventing development of incisional hernia without increased risk of surgical site occurrence or surgical site infection.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias with Biological Mesh: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic).

Methods

A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Results

For midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case–control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low. No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs.

Conclusion

There is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.