Preventing Parastomal Hernia Using a Modified Sugarbaker Technique With Composite Mesh During Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Management of adult intestinal stomas: The 2023 French guidelines

AIM

Digestive stoma are frequently performed. The last French guidelines have been published twenty years ago. Our aim was to update French clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative management of digestive stoma and stoma-related complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of French and English articles published between January 2000 and May 2022 was performed. Only digestive stoma for fecal evacuation in adults were considered. Stoma in children, urinary stoma, digestive stoma for enteral nutrition, and rare stoma (Koch, perineal) were not included.

RESULTS

Guidelines include the surgical landmarks to create digestive stoma (ideal location, mucocutaneous anastomosis, utility of support rods, use of prophylactic mesh), the perioperative clinical practice guidelines (patient education, preoperative ostomy site marking, postoperative equipment, prescriptions, and follow-up), the management of early stoma-related complications (difficulties for nursing, high output, stoma necrosis, retraction, abscess and peristomal skin complications), and the management of late stoma-related complications (stoma prolapse, parastomal hernia, stoma stenosis, late stoma retraction). A level of evidence was assigned to each statement.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines will be very useful in clinical practice, and allow to delete some outdated dogma.

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.

Extraperitonealization of the ileal conduit decreases the risk of parastomal hernia: A single-center, randomized clinical trial

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication in patients receiving ileal conduit urinary diversion after radical cystectomy. In this randomized controlled clinical trial, we validate our previous finding that extraperitonealization of ileal conduit decreases incidence of PSH. In total, 104 consecutive patients undergoing radical cystectomy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center are randomized 1:1 to receive either modified (extraperitonealized) ileal conduit (n = 52) or conventional ileal conduit (n = 52). Primary endpoint is incidence of radiological PSH during follow-up. Incidence of radiological PSH is lower in the modified group than in the conventional group (11.5% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.028) after a median follow-up of 32 months, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.374 (95% confidence interval: 0.145-0.965, p = 0.034) in the modified conduit group. The results support our previous finding that extraperitonealization of the ileal conduit is effective for reducing risk of PSH in patients receiving ileal conduit diversion.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

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.

No Reduction in Parastomal Hernia Rate 3 Years After Stoma Construction With Prophylactic Mesh: Three-year Follow-up Results From STOMAMESH-A Multicenter Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to compare rates of parastomal hernia (PSH) 3 years after stoma construction with prophylactic mesh or no mesh. A secondary objective was to compare complications requiring reintervention within 3 years.

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that a prophylactic mesh does not reduce the rate of PSH contrary to older studies. Long-term data on efficacy and safety is however scarce.

METHODS

A randomized controlled double-blind multicenter trial. Patients planned for permanent end colostomy were randomized to either prophylactic mesh in the retromuscular position around the stoma site or no mesh. They were evaluated for PSH clinically and with computed tomography (CT) 3 years after stoma construction. Medical records of all patients included were also reviewed at 3 years to detect any abdominal or abdominal wall surgery during that period.

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients were randomized. At 3 years, 154 patients were available for clinical evaluation and 137 underwent a CT scan. No significant difference in PSH rates was seen between the treatment allocation arms (clinical: P =0.829 and CT: P =0.761, respectively), nor was there a significant difference in the number of reinterventions, but 2 patients had their mesh removed at emergency surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh does not reduce the rate of PSH and cannot be recommended for routine use.

What should be included in case report forms? Development and application of novel methods to inform surgical study design: a mixed methods case study in parastomal hernia prevention

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation.

DESIGN

(1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a 'long list' of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study.

SETTING

Two secondary care surgical centres in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Successful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study.

RESULTS

59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN17573805.

A technique for laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy with an intact posterior sheath of rectus

Regardless of the advances in surgical techniques, parastomal hernia is still an inevitable complication for many patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominal perineal resection (APR). Extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) seems to be a effective method to reduce the risk of parastomal hernia. We propose a new approach to simplify and standardize laparoscopic EPC to make this operation easy to perform. We used the technique of laparoscopic TEP groin hernia repair to produce an extraperitoneal tunnel, which can not only facilitate precise visualization of the extraperitoneal tunnel but also utilize the intact posterior rectus abdominis sheath as biologic materials to maintain soft-tissue augmentation, with a satisfactory result. With laparoscopy, we can create adequate space without insufficient dissection of the extraperitoneal tunnel while avoiding damage to the retrorectus sheath. At the time of writing, we had performed this method in four patients, without any complications. This technique is effective at preventing parastomal hernia without extra costs.

Prophylactic Effect of Simultaneous Placement of Mesh on Incidence of Parastomal Hernia After Miles' Surgical Resection of Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

To assess the prophylactic effect of simultaneous placement of mesh and the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) after abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study included real-world data of 56 surgically resected patients with colorectal cancer who were consecutively assigned to two groups: control (no mesh, n = 32) and experimental (received mesh, n = 24). An artificial patch was placed under the tunica vaginalis of rectus abdominis for patients in the experimental group, whereas those in the control group received routine sigmoidostomy. The median follow-up time was >20 mo. The difference in hazards function was analyzed by cox regression analysis. The Kaplan-Meir analysis was used to determine the survival curves. A P value of <0.05 was considered as significant.

RESULTS

The postoperative incidence rate of PSH was lower in the experimental (41.7%) group than in the control group (71.9%; P = 0.045). The PSH postoperative time in the experimental group was significantly delayed compared to the control group (48 mo versus 10 mo; P < 0.001). The risk of progression from H1 to H2 was less in the experimental group compared to the control group (49.28% versus 60.86%; P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement significantly prolonged postoperative time for the recurrence of PSH. The incidence of recurrence of H2 (severe PSH) requiring secondary surgical repair was also reduced.

Virtual simulation of the biomechanics of the abdominal wall with different stoma locations

An ostomy is a surgical procedure by which an artificial opening in the abdominal wall, known as a stoma, is created. We assess the effects of stoma location on the abdominal wall mechanics. We perform three-dimensional finite element simulations on an anatomy model which was generated on the basis of medical images. Our simulation methodology is entirely based on open source software. We consider seventeen different locations for the stoma incision (trephine) and we simulate the mechanical response of the abdominal wall when an intraabdominal pressure as high as 20 kPa is applied. We focus on factors related to the risk of parastomal hernia development such as the deformation experienced by the abdominal wall, the stress levels supported by its tissues and the corresponding level of trephine enlargement. No significant dependence was found between stoma location and the levels of abdominal wall deformations or stress supported by tissues, except for the case with a stoma located on the linea alba. Trephine perimeter and area respectively increased by as much as [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. The level of trephine deformation depends on stoma location with considerably higher trephine enlargements found in stomas laterally located with respect to the rectus abdominis muscle.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation at reducing rates of parastomal hernia using the most recently available data.

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have uniformly concluded that the use of prophylactic surgical mesh when fashioning an end colostomy reduces the risk of parastomal hernia. However, recent RCTs have failed to corroborate these findings. This study was designed to provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation.

METHODS

A search of Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was performed. Articles were included if they were RCTs that compared the use of prophylactic mesh to no prophylactic mesh during construction of an end colostomy following colorectal resection for benign or malignant disease. The primary outcome was parastomal hernia rate. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects.

RESULTS

From 1,089 citations, 12 RCTs with 581 patients having prophylactic mesh placement and 671 patients not having prophylactic mesh placement met inclusion criteria. Incidence of parastomal hernia was significantly reduced in patients receiving prophylactic mesh (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, p = 0.0003, I² = 74%). Results were no longer significantly different when only studies conducted in the last 5 years were analyzed (p = 0.10). There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity, postoperative mortality, colostomy-specific morbidity, or length of stay between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a significant reduction in the risk of parastomal hernia with the use of prophylactic mesh at the time of end colostomy formation, despite recent evidence suggesting no difference. Further contemporary trials with the application of modern surgical technology are required.

Controversies in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

This article discuses current controversies in abdominal wall reconstruction, including the standardization of outcome reporting, mesh selection, the utility of robotic surgery in ventral hernia repair, and role for prophylactic stoma mesh at the time of permanent end colostomy formation. The current state of the literature pertaining to these topics is reviewed in detail.

Parastomal Hernia Repair Using a Silo Biologic Mesh

BACKGROUND

A parastomal hernia (PSH) is an enlargement of the stoma's original opening through the abdominal wall's musculature around a colostomy, ileostomy, or urostomy. Its incidence can be up to 48%. The described methods for its repair have high recurrence rate.This article presents a 3-dimensional silo technique for PSH repair (PSH-R). The aims of this technique are to enhance the structural strength of the tunnel wall, to reinforce both the sidewalls and the fascia above and below the muscular opening, and to maintain a stable stoma opening.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing PSH-R with the silo technique between January 2009 and May 2018 by 2 plastic surgeons were included. The outcome parameters of interest were hernia recurrence and wound-related complications.

RESULTS

This study reports 22 patients (9 male, 13 female) with a mean age of 66.7 years and an average body mass index of 29.2. The variety of ostomy types included 10 colostomies, 7 ileostomies, and 5 urostomies. Postoperatively, there were 3 surgical site infections, 1 seroma, and 2 wound healing delays. Six patients were readmitted, 3 of those because of small bowel obstruction. These 3 cases all required reoperation, in addition to 1 operative revision for stoma retraction. During our average follow-up of 19.9 months, 3 cases of PSH recurrence were diagnosed for a recurrence rate of 13.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

This silo technique is associated with favorable complication and low recurrence rates compared with the available techniques in surgical literature. In our practice, it has established itself as a new and safe technique for complex or recurrent PSHs and should be considered in a surgeon's armamentarium. This technique has become our standard for treatment of recurrent PSHs.

A semi-Markov model comparing the lifetime cost-effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent parastomal hernia in patients undergoing end colostomy creation for rectal cancer

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common problem following colostomy. Using prophylactic mesh during end colostomy creation may reduce PSH incidence, but concerns exist regarding the optimal type of mesh, potential long-term complications, and cost-effectiveness of its use. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent PSH in patients undergoing end colostomy creation for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytical model, stratified by rectal cancer stages I-IV, to estimate the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefits (NMBs) of synthetic, biologic and no mesh from a UK NHS perspective. We pooled the mesh-related relative risks of PSH from 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and superimposed these on the baseline (no mesh) risk from a population-based cohort. Uncertainty was assessed in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Synthetic mesh was less costly and more effective than biologic and no mesh to prevent PSH for all rectal cancer stages. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the incremental NMBs (95% CI) ranged between £1,706 (£1,692 to £1,720) (stage I) and £684 (£678 to £690) (stage IV) for synthetic versus no mesh, and £2,038 (£1,997 to £2,079) (stage I) and £1,671 (£1,653 to £1,689) (stage IV) for synthetic versus biologic mesh. Synthetic mesh was more cost-effective than no mesh unless the relative risk of PSH was ≥0.95 for stages I-III and ≥0.93 for stage IV. [Correction added on 05 October 2021 after first online publication: The estimation of health outcomes (QALYs) for all three interventions evaluated (synthetic mesh; biologic mesh; no mesh) have been corrected in this version.] CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic mesh was the most cost-effective strategy to prevent the formation of PSH in patients after end colostomy for any rectal cancer stage; however, conclusions are dependent on which subset of RCTs are considered to provide the most robust evidence.

Use of prophylactic mesh during initial stoma creation to prevent parastomal herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication following stoma creation. Previous reviews found mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation beneficial in reducing PSH incidence. Since then, several multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) produced widely ranging results rendering previous findings debatable. This current review assessed whether combining the latest larger multicentre RCTs would alter the previous findings.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase were searched from the respective dates of inception until 15 January 2021. RCTs were included if they compared mesh with no mesh during initial stoma creation in adult patients to prevent PSH. Included RCTs were summarised narratively and meta-analysed to estimate the relative risk (RR) of PSH incidence (primary analysis), peristomal complications and PSH repair (secondary analyses). Several subgroup analyses were performed, including mesh type (synthetic/biologic), surgical technique (open/laparoscopic) and mesh position (sublay/intraperitoneal).

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were included in the primary meta-analysis (1070 patients); PSH incidence was reduced in patients with mesh compared with patients without mesh at maximal follow-up (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.77; I²  = 67%; P < 0.01). The number of PSH repairs was fewer in patients who had mesh (RR = 0.63; 0.35-1.14; I²  = 6%; P = 0.39), with no difference in peristomal complications (RR = 0.96; 0.55-1.70; I²  = 0%; P = 0.71), comparing with no mesh. Subgroup analyses suggested that placing synthetic mesh using an open sublay technique might be more beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation reduces PSH incidence and potentially its repair, without an increase in peristomal complications. However, substantial heterogeneity among included RCTs limits confidence in the results.

Prophylactic funnel mesh to prevent parastomal hernia in permanent end colostomy: A retrospective cohort study

AIM

This study assessed the impact of a prophylactic, 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh on the rate of parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal rectum resection with permanent end colostomy.

METHODS

Data from 76 patients receiving permanent end colostomy after abdominoperineal rectum resection between 2013 and 2018 were collected retrospectively. Occurrences of parastomal hernia and reoperation rate due to parastomal hernia in patients with and without a prophylactic mesh were compared by univariate, multivariate, and propensity score-adjusted analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (28.9%) of the 76 included patients received a prophylactic mesh. The mean follow-up was 39.3 ± 23.8 months. Mesh implantation reduced the incidence of parastomal hernia to 9.1% (n = 2) compared to 42.6% (n = 23) in patients without a prophylactic mesh. The propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.48, p = 0.001). No reoperations due to parastomal hernia were needed in patients who received a prophylactic mesh, while nine patients without mesh (16.7%) required parastomal hernia repair (HR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.00-1.76, p = 0.015). Mesh implantation was not associated with increased short-term morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2, 31.8% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.468) or 30-day mortality (4.5% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic implantation of a 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh is a safe and effective method to prevent parastomal hernia in patients requiring permanent end colostomy. Mesh placement significantly reduces reoperations due to parastomal hernia.

Prophylactic mesh placement at index permanent end colostomy creation to prevent parastomal hernia-an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate persists regarding the efficacy of prophylactic mesh insertion (PMI) at index permanent stoma creation to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia (PSH). This meta-analysis aimed to appraise all the latest evidence from newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PMI for PSH prevention.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles from inception until November 2020. All RCTs that reported on PMI at end colostomy creation with ≥ 12 months follow-up were included. The primary objective was the rate of clinical and radiological PSH while secondary objectives included number of PSH requiring repair and stoma (or mesh)-related complications. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates. Sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included capturing 1097 patients. The mean (SD) age was 67.9 (±9.4) years. On random effects analysis, prophylactic mesh appeared to reduce the rate of both clinical (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.61, p = 0.002) and radiological (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.65, p = 0.0002) PSH. However, there was no difference in number of PSH requiring repair or stoma-related complications. On sensitivity analysis, when focusing on low-risk of bias studies, the benefit of prophylactic mesh in the retrorectus space was lost for both clinical (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.51, p = 0.89) and radiological PSH (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.18, p = 0.20).

CONCLUSION

PMI may reduce the rate of subsequent PSH. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings and to establish the optimal mesh position and shape before definite recommendations can be made.

Mini-invasive Surgery and Parastomal Hernia: Higher Frequency and No Prophylactic Mesh Effect

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is very common. Recent reports suggest increased frequency after laparoscopic stoma formation compared with open surgery. A retrospective chart review was designed to appraise the outcomes regarding PSH in open and in laparoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients operated by rectal resection and planned end-colostomy in the period from 2004 to 2018 were reviewed. A total of 70 open and 101 laparoscopic operations were identified. A modified retromuscular mesh application through the trephine was used for the prevention of PSH in 42% of patients in the laparoscopic group.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 58 (1 to 167) months in the open group and 43 (0 to 153) months in the laparoscopic group. Patient characteristics were evenly distributed between the groups, except for more male patients and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Score as well as higher rates of patients with neoadjuvant treatment and mesh prophylaxis, in the laparoscopic group. Clinical PSH occurrences were 2 (3%) in the open group and 18 (18%) in the laparoscopic group (P=0.00). Propensity-weighted analysis estimates increased odds ratio (OR) for PSH in the laparoscopic group [OR=11.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-96.6]. PSH repair rates were 0 in the open group and 6/18 (33%) in the laparoscopic group. Mesh prophylaxis in the laparoscopic group did not influence PSH outcome (OR=1.4; 95% CI: 0.5-4.0). Computed tomography scans were assessable in 48 and 66 patients, with median follow-up timepoints of 42 and 30 months in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively, and 8 (18%) and 21 patients (32%) were diagnosed with PSH. Computed tomography assessment implied an increased risk for PSH in laparoscopy (OR=3.5; 95% CI: 1.1-11.9). Aggregate of chart and computed tomography occurrence of PSH showed an equivalent hazard (OR=3.2; 95% CI: 1.1-9.5).

INTERPRETATIONS

Laparoscopic operations with stoma formation seem to have an increased rate of PSH in comparison with open operations and the results support previous claims. Retromuscular keyhole mesh placement may not be the ideal method of PSH prevention in laparoscopic stoma formation.

High recurrence rate after posterior component separation and keyhole mesh reconstruction for complex parastomal hernia: A case series study

AIM

This study aimed to describe the results of complex parastomal hernia repair after posterior component separation and keyhole reconstruction.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively sustained database in one single complex abdominal wall referral centre. We analysed the data of patients who underwent the posterior component separation technique using modified transversus abdominis release for complex parastomal hernia and retromuscular keyhole mesh repair from February 2014 to January 2017. Demographic data, hernia characteristics, operative details and outcomes were analysed. The primary outcome measured was the recurrence rate during the follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included in this study. Among the patients who underwent surgery for parastomal hernia, 17 patients had a colostomy (85%) and three patients had a ureteroileostomy after the Bricker procedure (15%). The mean body mass index was 33.2 kg/m² (range 25-47). Twelve patients had an expected associated risk according to the Carolinas equation for determining associated risk classification of >60%. Sixty per cent of our patients had contaminated or dirty/infected wounds. The overall complication rate was 60%. Surgical site infection was observed in 25% of the cases. The mortality rate in our study group was 5% (n = 1). We found clinical or radiological evidence of parastomal hernia recurrence in nine out of 20 (45%) patients during follow-up. No hernia recurrence was detected in the concomitant incisional hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

Although posterior component separation in the form of modified transversus abdominis muscle release allows abdominal wall reconstruction, keyhole mesh configuration at the stoma site does not offer satisfactory results in terms of long-term recurrence rate at the parastomal defect.

Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was the PSH rate at 1 year of follow-up with or without the use of a mesh.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

European guidelines currently recommend the use of a mesh at the time of a stoma formation for the prevention of PSH. These recommendations are based on the RCT and meta-analyses published before 2017. More recently 2 large RCT found no benefit in the mesh group. We investigated whether these latest results could change the conclusion of a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search and analyzed RCT investigating the use of a mesh to prevent PSH formation. All studies including end colostomies were included in the qualitative analysis no matter the surgical technique or the type of mesh. All studies with a limited risk of bias and presenting with usable data were used in the quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

There is a large heterogeneity among the studies, in terms of position of the mesh, surgical technique, and diagnostic method for the PSH.No statistically significant difference was found on the PSH rate at 1 or 2 years between the mesh and non-mesh groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this meta-analysis including the latest RCT on the prevention of PSH, the use of a mesh should not be recommended.

Stoma-related complications: a report from the Stoma-Const randomized controlled trial

AIM

The impact of construction techniques on the development of stoma complications is partly undiscovered. The aim of this paper was to report and analyse the impact of the three surgical techniques in a randomized controlled trial Stoma-Const on stoma-related complications as well as identifying risk factors and patient-reported stoma function as a planned secondary analysis.

METHODS

This was a randomized, multicenter trial where all patients scheduled to receive an end colostomy were invited to participate. Patients were randomized to one of three techniques for stoma construction; cruciate fascial incision, circular incision or prophylactic mesh. Stoma complications were assessed by a surgeon and stoma care nurses within 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine patients were randomized. Patient demographics were similar in all three groups. Data on stoma-related complications were available for analysis in 201 patients. A total of 127 patients (63%) developed some type of stoma complication within 1 year after surgery. The risk ratio (95% CI) for stoma complications was 0.93 (0.73; 1.2) between cruciate vs. circular incision groups and 1.02 (0.78; 1.34) between cruciate vs. mesh groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding parastomal hernia rate and no risk factors could be identified.

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial confirmed a high prevalence of stoma-related complications but could not identify an impact of surgical technique or identify modifiable risk factors for stoma-related complications.

[Prophylaxis of parastomal, perineal and incisional hernias in colorectal surgery]

This article gives an overview of the relevant evidence from the literature on the topic of prophylactic use of meshes to prevent incisional and parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery. In addition, based on a structured literature search the incidence of hernias in colorectal surgery over the past 5 years was analyzed. A slight majority (54%) of articles recommended the use of prophylactic mesh implantation in colorectal surgery. The prophylactic use of meshes appears to reduce the risk of hernias in colorectal surgery but is associated with a slightly increased perioperative wound infection rate. Parastomal hernias are associated with higher incidence rates compared with incisional hernias and also appear to benefit more from prophylactic mesh implantation. The evidence in the literature is still unclear regarding the use of synthetic or biological implants due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. Perineal hernias were excluded from the analysis due to the incomparability of the mainly casuistic literature. An overview is given in the discussion. The analysis of the literature and also in reflection of our own experience comes to the conclusion that the disrupted integrity of the abdominal wall due to the operation should be prophylactically reinforced with a mesh after colorectal surgery. An evidence-based recommendation is not possible based on the current state of research on implantation techniques, e.g. onlay, sublay intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) and selection of the implant.

Do North American colorectal surgeons use mesh to prevent parastomal hernia? A survey of current attitudes and practice

Background

The use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy procedures has been shown to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia. However, the degree to which the practice has been adopted clinically remains unknown. We conducted a study to evaluate the current opinions and practice patterns of Canadian and US colorectal surgeons with regard to the use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy.

Methods

Between May and July 2017, we conducted an internet-based survey of colorectal surgeons in Canada and the United States (selected at random). Using a questionnaire designed and tested for this study, we assessed the rate of mesh use, types of mesh and placement techniques, and perceived barriers and facilitators associated with the practice.

Results

Forty-eight (51.6%) of 93 invited Canadian surgeons and 253 (16.6%) of 1521 invited US surgeons responded (overall response rate 18.6%). Of the 301 respondents, 32 (10.6%) were currently using mesh, 32 (10.6%) had previously used mesh, and 237 (78.7%) had never used mesh. Of 29 respondents currently using mesh, 12 (41.4%) used it only in selected patients; the majority used a sublay technique (20 [69.0%]) and biologic mesh (17 [58.6%]). Most respondents agreed that parastomal hernias are common and negatively affect quality of life; however, there remained concerns about evidence quality and the perceived risk associated with mesh among those who had never or had previously used mesh.

Conclusion

Prophylactic mesh placement remains relatively uncommon; when used, biologic mesh was the most common type. Many surgeons were not convinced of the safety or efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement.

Prospective, Randomized Study on the Use of Prosthetic Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia in a Permanent Colostomy: Results of a Long-term Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias are common with permanent colostomies and prone to complications. The short-term results of trials of parastomal hernia prevention are widely published, but long-term results are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to detect the long-term effects and safety of preventive intra-abdominal parastomal mesh.

DESIGN

This is a long-term follow-up of a previous prospective randomized, controlled multicenter trial.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at 2 university hospitals and 3 central hospitals in Finland.

PATIENTS

Patients who had a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer between 2010 and 2013 were included in the study and invited for a follow-up visit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were clinical and radiological parastomal hernias.

RESULTS

Twenty subjects in the mesh group and 15 in the control group attended the follow-up visit with a median follow-up period of 65 (25th-75th percentiles, 49-91) months. A clinically detectable parastomal hernia was present in 4 of 20 (20.0%) and 5 of 15 (33.3%) subjects in the mesh and control groups (p = 0.45). A radiological parastomal hernia was present in 9 of 19 (45.0%) subjects in the mesh group and 7 of 12 (58.3%) subjects in the control group (p = 0.72). However, when all subjects (n = 70, 1:1) who attended the 12-month follow-up were screened for long-term results according to register data, 9 of 35 (25.9%) subjects in the mesh group and 16 of 35 (45.6%) subjects in control group were diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the follow-up period (p = 0.10). In addition, only 1 of 35 (2.7%) subjects in the mesh group but 6 of 35 (17.1%) subjects in the control group underwent a parastomal hernia operation during the long-term follow-up (p = 0.030).

LIMITATIONS

The study is limited by the small number of patients.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic intra-abdominal keyhole mesh did not decrease the rate of clinically detectable hernias but reduced the need for the surgical repair of parastomal hernias. Further trials are needed to identify a more efficient method to prevent parastomal hernias. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B171.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02368873. ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO ALEATORIZADO SOBRE EL USO DE MALLA PROTÉSICA PARA PREVENIR UNA HERNIA PARAESTOMAL EN UNA COLOSTOMÍA PERMANENTE: RESULTADOS DE UN SEGUIMIENTO A LARGO PLAZO: PREVENCIÓN DE HERNIA PARAESTOMAL, NEOPLASIA COLORRECTAL/ANAL: Las hernias paraestomales son comunes con colostomías permanentes y son propensas a complicaciones. Los resultados a corto plazo de los ensayos sobre la prevención de la hernia parastomal se publican ampliamente, pero los resultados a largo plazo son escasos.El objetivo del estudio es detectar los efectos a largo plazo y la seguridad de la malla parastomal intraabdominal preventiva.Este es un seguimiento a largo plazo de un estudio aleatorizado prospectivo, controlado y multicentrico previo.Este estudio se realizó en dos hospitales universitarios y tres hospitales centrales en Finlandia.Los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica por cáncer de recto 2010-2013 fueron incluidos en el estudio e invitados a una visita de seguimiento.Hernias parastomales clínicas y radiológicas.Veinte sujetos en el grupo de malla y 15 en el grupo control asistieron a la visita de seguimiento con una mediana de seguimiento de 65 meses (25-75 ° percentil 49-91). Una hernia paraestomal clínicamente detectable estuvo presente en 4/20 (20.0%) y 5/15 (33.3%) en los grupos de malla y control, respectivamente (p = 0.45). Una hernia parastomal radiológica estuvo presente en 9/19 (45.0%) en el grupo de malla y 7/12 (58.3%) en el grupo de control (p = 0.72). Sin embargo, cuando todos los sujetos (n = 70, 1: 1) que asistieron a los 12 meses de seguimiento fueron evaluados para obtener resultados a largo plazo de acuerdo con los datos del registro, 9/35 (25.9%) sujetos en el grupo de malla y 16/35 (45,6%) sujetos en el grupo control fueron diagnosticados con una hernia paraestomal durante el período de seguimiento (p = 0,10). Además, solo 1/35 (2.7%) en el grupo de malla pero 6/35 (17.1%) en el grupo control se sometieron a una operación de hernia paraestomal durante el seguimiento a largo plazo (p = 0.030).El estudio está limitado por un pequeño número de pacientes.La malla intra-abdominal profiláctica en ojo de cerradura no disminuyó la tasa de hernias clínicamente detectables, pero redujo la necesidad de la reparación quirúrgica de las hernias paraestomales. Se necesitan ensayos adicionales para identificar un método más eficiente para prevenir las hernias parastomales. Vea el resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B171. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).NCT02368873.

Use of Prophylactic Mesh When Creating a Colostomy Does Not Prevent Parastomal Hernia: A Randomized Controlled Trial-STOMAMESH

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether parastomal hernia (PSH) rate can be reduced by using synthetic mesh in the sublay position when constructing permanent end colostomy. The secondary aim was to investigate possible side-effects of the mesh.

BACKGROUND

Prevention of PSH is important as it often causes discomfort and leakage from stoma dressing. Different methods of prevention have been tried, including several mesh techniques. The incidence of PSH is high; up to 78%.

METHODS

Randomized controlled double-blinded multicenter trial. Patients undergoing open colorectal surgery, including creation of a permanent end colostomy, were randomized into 2 groups, with and without mesh. A lightweight polypropylene mesh was placed around the colostomy in the sublay position. Follow up after 1 month and 1 year. Computerized tomography and clinical examination were used to detect PSH at the 1-year follow up. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

After 1 year, 211 of 232 patients underwent clinical examination and 198 radiologic assessments. Operation time was 36 minutes longer in the mesh arm. No difference in rate of PSH was revealed in the analyses of clinical (P = 0.866) and radiologic (P = 0.748) data. There was no significant difference in perioperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of reinforcing mesh does not alter the rate of PSH. No difference in complication rate was seen between the 2 arms. Based on these results, the prophylactic use of mesh to prevent PSH cannot be recommended.

Chimney Trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias (PSHs) are common, troubling the lives of people with permanent colostomy. In previous studies, retromuscular keyhole mesh placement has been the most-used technique for PSH prevention but results have been controversial. Additionally, surgical treatment of PSHs is associated with a high rate of complications and recurrences. Therefore, it is crucial to find the most effective way to prevent PSHs in the first place without an increased risk of complications. Due to a lack of adequate research, there is no clear evidence or recommendations on which mesh or technique is best to prevent PSHs.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Chimney Trial is a Nordic, prospective, randomized controlled, multicenter trial designed to compare the feasibility and the potential benefits of specifically designed, intra-abdominal onlay mesh (DynaMesh®-Parastomal, FEG Textiltechnik GmbH, Aachen, Germany) against controls with permanent colostomy without mesh. The primary outcome of the Chimney Trial is the incidence of a PSH detected by a computerized tomography (CT) scan at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are the rate of clinically detected PSHs, surgical-site infection as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), complications as defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification, the reoperation rate, operative time, length of stay, quality of life as measured by the RAND-36 survey and colostomy impact score, and both direct and indirect costs. For each group, 102 patients were enrolled at attending hospitals and randomized at a ratio of 1:1 by browser-based software to receive a preventive mesh or a conventional colostomy without a mesh. Patients will be followed for 1 month and at 1, 3, and 5 years after the operation for long-term results and complications.

DISCUSSION

The Chimney Trial aims to provide level-I evidence on PSH prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03799939. Registered on 10 January 2019.

Prevention of parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal excision with a prophylactic three-dimensional funnel mesh

AIM

A prophylactic three-dimensional (3D) funnel mesh using the keyhole technique (intraperitoneal onlay mesh position) in abdominoperineal excision (APR) may significantly decrease the parastomal hernia (PSH) index without increasing morbidity. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to analyse the incidence of PSH and postoperative complications in patients who underwent permanent colostomy with the use of a prophylactic 3D preformed mesh compared with patients without a mesh.

METHOD

Patients who underwent an end-colostomy after APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer in a colorectal surgery unit were divided into two groups: group 1 without a prophylactic mesh and group 2 with a prophylactic synthetic mesh. The main end-point was to analyse the incidence of PSH after a median follow-up of 2.8 years.

RESULTS

One hundred and ten patients (64 in group 1 and 46 in group 2, without significant clinical differences) underwent a permanent colostomy after APR. In group 1 70.3% developed a PSH, compared with 13% in group 2 (P < 0.001). Age (especially for patients ≥ 75 years) represented a significant risk factor for PSH. There were no differences in postoperative complications between the groups.

CONCLUSION

A prophylactic parastomal 3D mesh using the keyhole technique may reduce the incidence of PSH after permanent colostomy without an increase in postoperative complications.

[Principles and parallels of prevention and repair of parastomal hernia with meshes]

After formation of a permanent terminal stoma by enterostomy, parastomal hernia (PSH) occurs in up to 80% of cases and leads to a wide variety of symptoms and complications with a high rate of emergency operations due to incarceration (ca. 15%). Consequently, greater consideration should be given to PSH prevention even as early as the time of enterostomy and generously applied indications for elective repair of manifest PSH. The aim of this article is to summarize and evaluate the current evidence for PSH repair and prevention. Poor postoperative results after attempted repair of manifest PSH with slit meshes in different layers of the abdominal wall shift the focus onto stoma lateralization (sandwich and Sugarbaker techniques) or 3‑dimensional tunnel-shaped implants with meshes to cover the stomal edges. To date, the best strategy for PSH prevention has still not been defined and techniques with slit meshes show different results. Nevertheless, 10 prospective randomized trials, meta-analyses, a Cochrane review and guidelines from the European Hernia Society (EHS) about various slit-mesh devices in sublay, onlay and intraperitoneal positions confirmed significantly reduced rates of PSH after mesh augmentation compared to conventionally sutured enterostomy without morbidity associated with the implanted material. Despite the positive data situation PSH prevention is seldom performed in daily practice, which is due to uncertainty surrounding the most suitable surgical strategy, the necessity to spend additional time at the end of a demanding operation, the aversion to implanting meshes into a contaminated operative field and the lack of remuneration of preventive surgical procedures. Future trials should, therefore, no longer compare standard enterostomy techniques with one prevention method in general but should have a new focus on techniques providing adequate results in PSH repair (Sugarbaker, sandwich and 3‑D tunnel meshes), probe the advantages and evaluate the differences in outcome between these strategies.

Dissection of the inferior mesenteric vein versus of the inferior mesenteric artery for the genitourinary function after laparoscopic approach of rectal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) is the standard surgical technique for the treatment of rectal cancer. However, rates of sexual dysfunction ofup to 50% have been described after TME, and rates of urinary dysfunction of up to 30%. Although other factors are involved, the main cause of postoperative genitourinary dysfunction is intraoperative injury to the pelvic autonomic nerves. The risk is particularly high in the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). The aim of this study is to compare pre- and post-TME sexual dysfunction, depending on the surgical approach usedin the inferior mesenteric vessels: either directly on the IMA, or from the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) to the IMA.

Methods

Prospective, randomized,controlled study of patients with rectal adenocarcinoma with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, who will be randomly assigned to one of two groups depending on the surgical approach to the inferior mesenteric vessels. The main variable is pre- and postoperative sexual dysfunction; secondary variables are visualization and preservation of the pelvic autonomic nerves, pre- and postoperative urinary dysfunction, and pre- and postoperative quality of life. The sample will comprise 90 patients, 45 per group.

Discussion

The aim is to demonstrate that the dissection route from the IMV towards the IMA favors the preservation of the pelvic autonomic nerves and thus reducesrates of sexual dysfunction post-surgery.

Trial registration

Ethical and Clinical Research Committee, Parc Taulí University Hospital: ID 017/315. ClinicalTrials.gov TAU-RECTALNERV-PRESERV-2018 (TRN: NCT03520088) (Date of registration 04/03/2018).

Prophylactic Mesh for Hernia Prevention: Has the Time Arrived?

Incisional and parastomal hernias continue to be vexing problems for patients and surgeons. Risk factors are generally patient-related and/or technical in nature, and in some cases, can be altered, resulting in improved outcomes. Improved fascial closure techniques can only partly reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation. Even under optimal circumstances, using time tested closure techniques and materials, the rate remains high, due primarily to factors that are not modifiable or are unidentifiable. In such cases, there may be a beneficial role for prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA), wherein mesh is implanted at the time of initial surgery or stoma formation. Several high-risk groups that might benefit from PMA have been identified, including patients undergoing open abdominal aneurysm repair or colorectal procedures, obese patients, and patients requiring creation of permanent gastrointestinal or urological stomas. Although the initial results of PMA are promising, the benefits of this strategy must be weighed against potential risks. Outcome measures to assess efficacy should include not only hernia recurrence but also quality of life, surgical-site occurrences, and cost. Further studies are warranted to predict which specific patient populations might benefit most from PMA and to identify ideal mesh materials as well as preferred implantation sites and methods of mesh fixation.

Laparoscopic Modified Keyhole Technique with Coated Polyester Mesh for Treatment of Parastomal Hernia: Measures for Improving the Outcome

Purpose: Although the modified Sugarbaker technique gives good results for the treatment of parastomal hernia (PH), there are other valid options for the treatment of this frequent complication. In our practice, the laparoscopic keyhole (KH) technique, with some specific modifications, can give similar results. Materials and Methods: We collected data on all the patients with symptomatic PHs who underwent surgical repair between January 2002 and December 2017 in our surgical department. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the recurrence rate after at least 1 year, determined on the basis of physical examination during follow-up and on postprocedure radiological results. Results: Ninety patients were treated with the KH technique. The stomas that were treated were 83 end colostomies and 7 ileal ureterostomies. Eighty-eight patients were treated with polyester mesh (Parietex™, Medtronic, Ireland) and 2 with a composite mesh (Physiomesh™, Ethicon). Patients had median follow-up period of 1 year. Seroma occurred in 4 patients, who were treated conservatively by clinical monitoring. Four patients had a recurrence: 1 occurred on the seventh postoperative day, due to a technical error; 1 after 6 months, due to the partial shrinkage of the mesh into the defect; the third after 1 year, but it occurred at the beginning of our experience, and the last recurrence was after 3 years in a patient who gained 15 kg after the procedure. Conclusions: If a few precautionary steps are added to the original technique, laparoscopic KH repair is feasible and safe, giving good results in terms of complications and recurrence rates.

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.

New advances in prophylactic mesh placement in end colostomy

Patients with end colostomy often undergo multiple operations because of high incidence and recurrence rates of parastoml hernia. Therefore, it is particularly important to prevent the occurrence of parastomal hernia when undergoing an end colostomy. Using a prophylactic mesh, which is developed and gradually recognized in recent years, is one of the methods to prevent parastomal hernia. Here, we review the application and new advances in prophylactic mesh placement in end colostomy.

Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation

BACKGROUND

Parastomal herniation is a common problem following formation of a stoma after both elective and emergency abdominal surgery. Symptomatic hernias give rise to a significant amount of patient morbidity, and in some cases mortality, and therefore may necessitate surgical treatment to repair the hernial defect and/or re-site the stoma. In an effort to reduce this complication, recent research has focused on the application of a synthetic or biological mesh, inserted during stoma formation to help strengthen the abdominal wall.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate whether mesh reinforcement during stoma formation reduces the incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary objectives included the safety or potential harms or both of mesh placement in terms of stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, patient-reported symptoms/postoperative quality of life, and re-hospitalisation/ambulatory visits.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1970 to 11 January 2018), Ovid Embase (1974 to 11 January 2018), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to 11 January 2018). To identify ongoing studies, we also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 11 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of prosthetic mesh (including biological/composite mesh) placement versus a control group (no mesh) for the prevention of parastomal hernia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the literature search for potential eligibility. We obtained the full articles for all studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria and included all those that met the criteria. Any differences in opinion between review authors were resolved by consensus. We pooled study data into a meta-analysis. We assessed heterogeneity by calculation of I² and expressed results for each variable as a risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We expressed continous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 844 participants. The primary outcome was overall incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary outcomes were rate of reoperation at 12 months, operative time, postoperative length of hospital stay, stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate. We judged the risk of bias across all domains to be low in six trials. We judged four trials to have an overall high risk of bias.The overall incidence of parastomal hernia was less in participants receiving a prophylactic mesh compared to those who had a standard ostomy formation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.66; 10 studies, 771 participants; I² = 69%; low-quality evidence). In absolute numbers, the incidence of parastomal hernia was 22 per 100 participants (18 to 27) receiving prophylactic mesh compared to 41 per 100 participants having a standard ostomy formation.There were no differences in the need for reoperation (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.64; 9 studies, 757 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence); operative time (MD -6.50 (min), 95% CI -18.24 to 5.24; 6 studies, 671 participants; low-quality evidence); postoperative length of hospital stay (MD -0.95 (days), 95% CI -2.03 to 0.70; 4 studies, 500 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or stoma-related infections (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.50; 6 studies, 472 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) between the two groups.We were unable to analyse mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate due to sparse data or because the outcome was not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane Review included 10 RCTs with a total of 844 participants. The review demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia in people who had a prophylactic synthetic mesh placed at the time of the index operation compared to a standard ostomy formation. However, our confidence in this estimate is low due to the presence of a large degree of clinical heterogeneity, as well as high variability in follow-up duration and technique of parastomal herniation detection. We found the rate of stoma-related infection to be similar in both the intervention and control groups.

Prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia: a position statement on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland

AIM

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) Delphi process identified prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia (PSH) as the second highest priority non-cancer related colorectal pathology. This position statement aims to summarize the current evidence base.

METHODS

Four broad themes were identified (prevention, diagnosis/classification, management and operative repair). Guidelines are based on evidence from an extensive literature review using organized searches on the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adhered to for classifying the quality of evidence and reporting the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

The suture repair of PSH other than for patients in extremis is not recommended. Synthetic non-absorbable mesh can be used safely in the short term in the construction of colostomies post rectal surgery, but longer-term follow-up is needed. Other broad recommendations are made around access to stoma care nurses, prevention classification and management.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of high quality evidence for many domains in the prevention and treatment of PSH but the results of several studies are awaited. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: Parastomal hernias are a common and debilitating condition following stoma formation. This position statement from ACPGBI details the current evidence base and ongoing research for the prevention, diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias.

The modified laparoscopic keyhole parastomal hernia repair with in situ re-ostomy has low recurrence rate

PURPOSE

This study aimed to present a modified laparoscopic keyhole parastomal hernia repair technique with in situ re-ostomy and show its safety and feasibility at a mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

The technique begins with adhesiolysis during laparoscopy. An annular incision is made between the skin and stomal mucosa. Then, after all adhesions of the stomal bowel and its mesentery are separated from the hernial sac, the stomal bowel is delivered through the keyhole mesh. The mesh is then stitched to the stomal bowel and placed intraperitoneally. The hernial ring is narrowed, and the mesh is further stitched to the hernial ring and stomal tube. After the mesh is fixed, the redundant stomal bowel is shortened, and a new in situ stoma is matured in the conventional way.

RESULTS

Altogether, 65 consecutive patients underwent successful hernia repair via a modified laparoscopic keyhole with in situ re-ostomy. Two of the patients had recurrent parastomal hernias. No mortalities occurred during the perioperative period. Morbidities included two cases of seroma and three of ileus, all of which were cured with conservative treatment. In addition, one case of intestinal perforation was rescued by intestinal resection and enteroenterostomy. Median follow-up was 29 months (range 3-60 months). No complications of mesh-related infection or patch erosion were noted during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Modified laparoscopic keyhole parastomal hernia repair with in situ re-ostomy is a safe procedure with a low recurrence rate at the mid-term follow-up.

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement of stomas: a cost-effectiveness meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Previous meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested a reduction in parastomal hernias (PSH) with prophylactic mesh. However, concerns persist regarding variably supportive evidence and cost. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform a novel cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched (February 2018). We included RCTs assessing mesh reinforcement during stoma formation. We assessed PSH rates, subsequent repair, complications and operative time. Odds ratios (OR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were generated on intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) bases. These then informed cost analysis using 2017 UK/USA reimbursement rates and stoma care costs.

Results

Eleven RCTs were included. Four hundred fifty-three patients were randomised to mesh (PP 412), with 454 controls (PP 413). Six studies used synthetic meshes, three composite and two biological (91.7% colostomies; 3.64% ileostomies, 4.63% not specified). Reductions were seen in the number of hernias detected clinically and on computed tomography scan. For the former, ITT OR was 0.23 (95% confidence interval 0.11–0.51; p = 0.0003; n = 11); NNT 4.17 (2.56–10.0), with fewer subsequent repairs: OR 0.29 (0.13–0.64; p = 0.002; n = 7; NNT16.7 (10.0–33.3). Reductions persisted for synthetic and composite meshes. Operative time was similar, with zero incidence of mesh infection/fistulation, and fewer peristomal complications. Synthetic mesh demonstrated a favourable cost profile, with composite approximately cost neutral, and biological incurring net costs.

Conclusions

Reinforcing elective stomas with mesh (primarily synthetic) reduces subsequent PSH rates, complications, repairs and saves money. We recommend that future RCTs compare mesh subtypes, techniques, and applicability to emergency stomas.

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 using a cyanoacrilate-fixed retrofascial mesh

INTRODUCTION

The rate of incisional hernia in high-risk patients (obesity, cancer, etc.) is high, even in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of the use of cyanoacrylate fixed prophylactic meshes in the assistance incision in overweight or obese patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A prospective, non-randomized cohort study of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer between January 2013 and March 2016 was performed. Those with a body mass index greater than 25kg / m² were evaluated to implant a prophylactic meshes fixed with cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl®) as reinforcement of the assistance incision.

RESULTS

52 patients were analyzed (mean body mass index: 28.4±2kg / m ²). Prophylactic meshes was implanted in 15 patients. The time to put the mesh in place was always less than 5minutes. There was no significant difference in wound infection rate (12% vs. 10%). No mesh had to be explanted. Although the mean follow-up was shorter (14.1±4 vs. 22.3±9 months), there were no incisional hernia in the mesh group. On the other hand, in the non-mesh group, 1 acute evisceration (2.7%) and 4 incisional hernia of the assistance incision were observed (10.8%). There were no significant differences between groups regarding trocar incisional hernia (6.6 vs. 5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of a reinforcement prophylactic mesh in overweight or obese patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery is safe and seems to reduce the short-term rate of incisional hernia. Fixation with cyanoacrylate is a rapid method that facilitates the procedure without additional complications.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias

BACKGROUND

International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project.

METHODS

The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants.

RESULTS

End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed.

CONCLUSION

An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

The Longtan Modification: An Effective and Economical Surgical Innovation for Parastomal Hernia Post-Intraperitoneal Sigmoidostomy

PURPOSE

This study was designed to introduce a new surgical innovation, referred to as the "Longtan modification," for cases with parastomal hernia (PSH) following intraperitoneal sigmoidostomy, and to assess the safety and feasibility of this procedure.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and June 2016, a total of 26 consecutive cases with PSH successfully underwent this procedure. The patient demographics, surgical outcomes, stoma-related complications, and the stoma function were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean diameter of the hernia ring was 7.6 cm, mean operation time was 94.2 minutes, and mean intraoperative blood loss was 18.0 mL. The mean period of postoperative hospitalization was 4.4 days while the mean hospitalization cost was only $3,750 USD. There were no severe complications such as postoperative hemorrhage, ischemic necrosis, peritoneal infection, or intestinal obstruction, although one case suffered from postoperative infection at the site of incision. None of the cases had a recurrence of PSH during the follow-up period. In addition, the stoma functioned efficiently and appropriately following the Longtan modification.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the Longtan modification appears to be an effective and economical surgical innovation for cases with PSH following intraperitoneal sigmoidostomy.