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

Rectus abdominis muscle atrophy, prophylactic mesh, and stoma placement: retrospective findings from a prospective multicenter trial

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether rectus abdominis muscle atrophy is associated with a lower risk of developing parastomal hernia. Secondary objectives were to assess whether the use of prophylactic mesh is a risk factor for rectus abdominis muscle atrophy and whether the position of the stoma within the rectus abdominis muscle affects the risk of parastomal hernia.

METHODS

This retrospective study analysed patients from a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial in which rectal cancer patients were randomised to stoma creation with or without prophylactic mesh. Computed tomography at 12 months was evaluated to identify parastomal hernia, rectus abdominis muscle atrophy and position of stoma in the rectus abdominis muscle.

RESULTS

Out of 149 patients, rectus abdominis muscle atrophy was observed in 9% and parastomal hernia in 42% of patients. There was no association between rectus abdominis muscle atrophy and parastomal hernia (p = 0.80; RR 1.07; CI 0.62-1.86), nor between prophylactic mesh and rectus abdominis muscle atrophy (p = 0.19; RR 2.00; CI 0.7-5.73). Stoma placement within the rectus abdominis muscle also showed no association with parastomal hernia development (p = 0.69; RR 0.97; CI 0.81-1.15).

CONCLUSION

This study found no statistically significant association between rectus abdominis muscle atrophy and parastomal hernia. The use of prophylactic mesh was not a risk factor for rectus abdominis muscle atrophy, and stoma placement within the rectus abdominis muscle was not associated with parastomal hernia. The previously reported association between prophylactic mesh, rectus abdominis muscle atrophy, and parastomal hernia was not confirmed in this cohort.

Propensity Score Analysis of the Utility of Supervised Perioperative Abdominal Wall Exercises for the Prevention of Parastomal Hernia

Retrospective studies have suggested that performing perioperative abdominal wall exercises may decrease the incidence of parastomal hernias. Objectives: This study seeks to assess the usefulness of supervised preoperative and postoperative abdominal wall exercises in the prevention of parastomal hernia. Methods: An observational study of patients who underwent a stoma, temporary or permanent, between January 2019 and December 2020, was performed. Minimum follow-up was 12 months. During the first 12 months of recruitment, patients were enrolled on a consecutive basis and assigned to the control group, and the remaining patients were assigned to the intervention group. A propensity score matching was performed to obtain totally comparable groups. A set of exercises was designed by the Rehabilitation Department, and their performance was supervised by physiotherapists and stoma therapists. The diagnosis of parastomal hernia was made by physical examination and computed axial tomography. Descriptive statistics of the study group were performed. Subsequently, prediction models for the occurrence of parastomal hernia were created based on binary logistic regression and classification trees. Results: After propensity matching and inclusion criteria, 64 patients were included (colostomy: n = 39, ileostomy: n = 25). Independent prognostic variables for parastomal hernias in colostomy were age (p = 0.044) and perioperative exercises (p = 0.003). The binary logistic regression model based on these variables gave an AUC of 97.6. The classification tree model included only perioperative exercises with an AUC of 92.5%. In the case of ileostomy, perioperative exercises were the only independent prognostic variable identified. The classification-tree-based model reported an AUC of 84%. Conclusions: The performance of supervised abdominal wall training and strengthening exercises may be useful in the prevention of parastomal hernias.

Prophylactic funnel mesh for preventing parastomal hernia in patients with permanent end stoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The high incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) has led surgeons to study strategies to minimize PSH, including prophylactic mesh placement during permanent stoma creation. There are several studies on prophylactic mesh for preventing PSH with conflicting results and there is limited information on using 3D funnel meshes and their effectiveness in preventing PSH.

METHODS

A search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science for studies published up to September 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics. Statistical analysis was performed using R Software version 4.4.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial and six observational studies were included, totaling 585 patients who underwent colorectal surgeries requiring a permanent stoma. Of these, 278 patients (47.5%) received prophylactic funnel meshes, and 307 (52.5%) underwent conventional stoma procedures. Compared to conventional procedures without mesh, the funnel mesh group showed significantly lower rates of PSH (9% vs. 54%; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-0.17, p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed in time to PSH development, stoma prolapse, Clavien-Dindo grade 3b complications, stricture, ileus, leak, wound infection, small bowel obstruction, 30-day mortality, operative time, or hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing colorectal surgery with a permanent end stoma, prophylactic funnel mesh was associated with lower rates of PSH, but findings remain exploratory and limited by current evidence.

Surgeons' opinions and concerns regarding prophylactic mesh placement when conducting a permanent ileo- and colostomy A survey among 172 surgeons in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria

Background

Prophylactic mesh placement when creating a permanent colostomy was recommended by the 2017 European Hernia Society guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias (GPTPH2017). The extent of this recommendation is under debate based on the long-term data from clinical trials. Our aim was to conduct a survey of surgeons revealing perspectives and concerns regarding GPTPH2017 and to discuss their concerns.

Methods

From January 2023 to September 2023 a survey among surgeons of Germany, Switzerland and Austria was conducted. The questionnaire addressed demographic data of the participants, information on work experience/location, number of elective permanent colo- and ileostomies, and opinions on the recommendation of GPTPH2017 for prophylactic mesh placement.

Results

A total of 172 surgeons from Germany, Austria and Switzerland answered the questionnaire and 59 of them stated professional experience of 20-30 years. Most of the surgeons (n = 51, 31.3%) worked in a primary care hospital. A total of 112 participants were familiar with the GPTPH2017. Sixty-five surgeons (40%) stated that they never conduct a prophylactic mesh placement when creating an elective permanent colostomy (rarely, n = 44 (26.7%). Seven participants always place a mesh (4.2%, missing data: 7). Main concerns regarding prophylactic mesh placement was the concern of surgeons about wound infection (n = 107, 67.7%) and lack of evidence (n = 65, 41.1%). For some participants the GPTPH2017 is seen to be industry-driven with low evidence, too old and leading to overtreatment.

Conclusions

The main reason for not placing a prophylactic mesh when conducting a permanent colostomy was the risk of wound infection.

Use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia formation: a systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh placement in reducing the incidence of parastomal hernias following colostomy, ileostomy, and ileal conduit formation.

METHODS

A systematic review identified relevant studies evaluating parastomal hernia incidence with prophylactic mesh use during stoma formation. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis using Bayesian modeling were performed.

RESULTS

25 studies, consisting of 16 randomized control trials (RCT), 6 follow up studies, and 3 retrospective cohort studies, were included. Prophylactic mesh led to significantly fewer parastomal hernias beyond 6 months follow-up (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33-0.58). Hernias were reduced with mesh for both ileal conduits and colostomies. When analyzing hazard ratios (HRs), only 6 studies were included, and a statistically significant difference was observed among both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (HR 0.75 [0.53, 0.92], p = 0.01) and non-RCTs (HR 0.57 [0.36, 0.92], p = 0.02). Network meta-analysis found the retromuscular approach with mesh had the lowest hernia rate. Regression was non-significant for variations between study types.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated prophylactic mesh placement during ostomy creation significantly reduced parastomal hernia risk, more prominently beyond 6 months, consistently across randomized trials and observational studies for urologic and gastrointestinal ostomies. The retromuscular technique was most effective.

Stoma Complications

Stoma-related complications are among the most common sources of perioperative morbidity in colorectal surgery. Complications can occur intraoperatively, in the immediate postoperative period, or even months to years after stoma creation. Although some will require urgent surgical intervention, most are treated nonoperatively with a combination of education, appliance adjustment, and behavioral intervention. Optimal management of stoma complications nearly always requires a multidisciplinary team approach, including surgeons, enterostomal therapists, and other allied health professionals, depending on the specific situation. Patients with a functional stoma should be expected to be able to do anything that patients without a stoma can do with minimal exceptions. The treatment of stoma complications therefore centers on improving stoma function and maximizing quality of life. Although timely and comprehensive intervention will result in the resolution of most stoma complications, there is no substitute for preoperative planning and meticulous stoma creation.

Parastomal Hernia Prevention Using Funnel-Shaped Intra-Abdominal Mesh Compared to No Mesh: The Chimney Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Prophylactic placement of a mesh has been suggested to prevent parastomal hernia. Evidence to support this practice is contradictory.

Objective

To determine whether funnel-shaped permanent synthetic parastomal mesh is effective and safe in parastomal hernia prevention.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Chimney Trial was a randomized single-blinded multicenter trial conducted in 4 hospitals in Finland and 1 in Sweden from February 2019 and September 2021. Of 439 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted abdominoperineal resection or the Hartmann procedure, 143 were enrolled in the trial, 135 received their allocated intervention, and 121 were analyzed at 12-month follow-up. Data were analyzed from December 2023 to May 2024.

Intervention

In the intervention group, a permanent colostomy was created with a funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh and compared to a control group with a stoma without the mesh.

Main Outcome and Measure

The primary end point was the incidence of computed tomography (CT)-confirmed parastomal hernia 12 months after surgery.

Results

There were 68 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [11.6] years; 36 [53% male and 32 [47%] female) who received the intended allocation in the mesh group and 67 (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [11.7] years; 48 [72%] male and 19 [28%] female) who received the intended allocation in the control group. CT scans were available for 58 patients in the mesh group and 59 patients in the control group at the 12-month follow-up. CT scans confirmed parastomal hernia in 6 of 58 patients (10%) in the mesh group compared to 22 of 59 patients (37%) in the control group (difference, 27%; 95% CI, 12-41; P < .001). Clinical parastomal hernia as a secondary outcome was recorded in 1 of 60 patients (2%) in the mesh group compared to 27 of 61 (43%) in the control group (difference, 41%; 95% CI, 29-55; P < .001). The number of patients with Clavien-Dindo class II ileus was 23 (35%) in the mesh group compared to 11 (17%) in the control group (difference, 18%; 95% CI, 3-32; P = .006). Only slight differences between the groups were detected in other stoma-related complications, readmissions, operative time, surgical site infections, reoperations, and quality of life.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, funnel-shaped parastomal mesh prevented a significant number of parastomal hernias without predisposing patients to mesh- or stoma-related complications during 12-month follow-up. The results of this study suggest the funnel-shaped mesh is a feasible option to prevent parastomal hernia.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03799939.

Proof of concept of an experimental prototype for the prevention of parastomal hernia

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyse the complications and problems associated with the use of an experimental prototype designed for the prevention of parastomal hernia (PSH), one of the most frequent complications in ostomates.

METHODS

A single-centre, non-comparative, proof-of-concept interventional pilot study of an experimental prototype designed to be used in conjunction with an abdominal compression binder to prevent PSH was conducted. The "Ostomy Fixation Device for Hernia Prevention" (patent P201531826) is a semi-rigid ostomy protector, to be used in conjunction with a compression binder. It is designed to adapt to the dimensions of standard ostomy bags from different brands and serves to transmit, in a localised manner, the support coming from the compression binder in the peristomal area without putting pressure on the collection bag. The main outcome measures were efficacy, safety, and patient-users' opinion/perception.

RESULTS

Ten patients were studied for 12 months. Mean age was 61 years (± 11.59), 70% (7) were male, 80% (8) ostomised for colorectal cancer, 90% (9) underwent planned surgery and 80% (8) had a colostomy.

EFFICACY

the incidence of HPE was 10% (1).

SAFETY

no participant experienced pain, discomfort, itching, stinging, leakage, pouch detachment, allergy to components, or injury to the stoma or peristomal skin due to rubbing or pressure. 90% (n = 9) were considered "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the device.

CONCLUSIONS

An innovative device designed in collaboration between healthcare professionals and end-users has been shown to be safe and effective in reducing PSH in the group of ostomates studied.

Effect of Sublay Preventive Mesh for Terminal Colostomy on Symptoms and Quality of Life in Patients With Parastomal Hernia: A Post Hoc Analysis of the GRECCAR 7 Cohort

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses confirm that the use of a prophylactic mesh does not significantly reduce the parastomal hernia rate. Data about the benefits of these meshes concerning the symptoms of parastomal hernia are lacking in the existing literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a post hoc analysis of the patients presenting parastomal hernia from the GRECCAR 7 (Groupe de recherche sur la chirurgie du cancer du rectum) randomized clinical trials cohort on whether the presence or the absence of the mesh influenced the symptoms, the quality of life, and complications of patients with parastomal hernias.

DESIGN

We studied the parastomal hernia-related symptoms among the 2 groups of the GRECCAR 7 randomized clinical trial, with or without prophylactic mesh at the time of the index surgery.

SETTINGS

Data were retrospectively extracted and analyzed from the GRECCAR 7 database.

PATIENTS

Patients diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the 2 years of the GRECCAR 7 study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Several prospectively collected data about the symptoms were studied among this population. We also studied the average interval between parastomal hernia repair surgery and both index surgery and diagnosis of parastomal hernia.

RESULTS

Among the 199 patients included in the GRECCAR study, 36 patients (35.6%) in the nonmesh group and 33 patients (33.7%) in the mesh group were diagnosed with clinical and/or radiological parastomal hernia at 2-year follow-up, without a statistically significant difference ( p = 0.89). None of the studied symptoms showed any statistically significant difference between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

This study relies on a relatively small number of patients, and although data were prospectively collected, we lacked some details about the categorization of parastomal hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the use of a prosthetic mesh in a sublay position to prevent parastomal hernia in terminal end colostomy patients should no longer be recommended. See Video Abstract .

EFECTO DE LA MALLA PREVENTIVA RETROMUSCULAR PARA COLOSTOMA TERMINAL CON RESPECTO A LOS SNTOMAS Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA EN PACIENTES CON HERNIA PARAESTOMAL UN ANLISIS POSTHOC DE LA COHORTE GRECCAR

ANTECEDENTES:Los recientes metaanálisis y ensayos clínicos aleatorizados confirman que el uso de una malla profiláctica no reduce significativamente la tasa de hernia paraestomal. En la literatura existente faltan datos sobre los beneficios de estas mallas en relación con los síntomas de la hernia paraestomal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis post-hoc de los pacientes que presentaron hernia paraestomal de la cohorte de 7 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados GRECCAR sobre si la presencia o ausencia de la malla influyó en los síntomas, la calidad de vida y las complicaciones de los pacientes con hernias paraestomales.DISEÑO:Estudiamos los síntomas relacionados con la hernia paraestomal entre los dos grupos del ensayo clínico aleatorizado GRECCAR 7, con o sin malla profiláctica en el momento de la cirugía índice.AJUSTES:Los datos fueron extraídos y analizados de manera retrospectiva de la base de datos GRECCAR 7.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal durante los dos años del estudio GRECCAR 7.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se estudiaron varios datos recopilados de manera prospectiva sobre los síntomas en esta población. También estudiamos el intervalo promedio entre la cirugía reparadora de la hernia paraestomal así como también la cirugía índice como el diagnóstico de la hernia paraestomal.RESULTADOS:De entre los 199 pacientes incluidos en el estudio GRECCAR, 36 pacientes (35,6%) fueron diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal de manera clínica y/o radiológica en el grupo sin malla a los 2 años de seguimiento y 33 (33,7%) en el grupo con malla, sin diferencia estadísticamente significativa ( p = 0,89). Ninguno de los síntomas estudiados mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se basa en un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes y, aunque los datos fueron recopilados de forma prospectiva, nos faltaron algunos detalles sobre la categorización de las hernias paraestomales.CONCLUSIONES:Creemos que ya no se debe recomendar el uso de una malla protésica en posición retromuscular para prevenir la hernia paraestomal en pacientes con colostomía terminal. (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Effects of different mesh materials on complications after prophylactic placement for stoma formation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We primary aimed to synthesise the available data, assess the effectiveness of different mesh materials in prophylactic mesh placement, and rank these materials according to the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) and other stoma complications.

METHOD

This network meta-analysis performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Four databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of prophylactic mesh placement. The aggregated results were performed in the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random effects models.

RESULT

Thirteen randomised controlled trials from 1203 articles, met the inclusion criteria, including 681 cases without meshes, 65 cases with mesh material of xenogeneic acellular dermis (porcine/bovine), 27 cases with polypropylene/PG910, 114 cases with polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Monocryl), 117 cases with polypropylene/cellulose (ORC), 233 cases with polypropylene, and 35 cases with polypropylene/PVDF. In network A, compared with no mesh, only polypropylene (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04-0.80) were significantly associated with a reduction in the incidence of PSH. In network B, no statistical difference regarding stoma complications was found between mesh and no mesh.

CONCLUSION

Based on the network meta-analysis and ranking results, the polypropylene mesh material exhibited the best performance. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with larger sample sizes and high-quality randomised controlled trials.

Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Non-Midline Incisions: A Systematic Review

Background

Many abdominal-pelvic surgeries utilize incisions not along the linea alba, such as transverse, laparoscopic, ostomy reversal, or ostomy formation incisions. The prevalence of ventral incisional hernias (VIH) at these sites and the efficacy of prophylactic mesh in preventing VIH remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception to September 2022. We included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared prophylactic mesh reinforcement versus no mesh. The primary outcome was the incidence of VIH at postoperative follow-up equal to or greater than 24 months. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI) and surgical site occurrence (SSO).

Results

Of 3186 screened articles, only 3 RCTs with at least an 80% 2-year follow-up, encompassing a total of 901 patients, were included for analysis of non-midline VIH. Fifteen additional RCTs were included for analysis of secondary outcomes. The rate of parastomal hernias with prophylactic mesh was 21%, while it ranged from 44%-64% in the control group. The rate of incisional hernia after ostomy reversal with prophylactic mesh was 10%, and 16% in the control group. No clear evidence of a difference was found in rates of SSI or SSO between groups.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence on the role of prophylactic mesh in preventing non-midline VIH. More studies at low risk for bias are needed to elucidate the balance of the long-term risks and benefits of prophylactic mesh for non-midline incisions.

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.

Impact of parastomal hernia on colostomy costs at 1 year: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (STOMAMESH)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication after the creation of a colostomy, with a prevalence of approximately 50%. Despite the high frequency, little is known how PSH affects the cost of colostomy care.The hypothesis in this study was that PSH increases the cost of colostomy care compared with not having a PSH.

METHODS

Two groups with (N = 61) and without (n = 147) PSH were compared regarding costs of stoma appliances and visits. The population from a large randomized trial comparing construction of colostomy with or without prophylactic mesh (STOMAMESH) was used and cross-matched with health economic data from the National Pharmaceutical Register, 1 year after initial surgery.

RESULTS

Patients with and without a PSH were similar in basic demographic data. No difference in cost of stoma appliances (with PSH 2668.3 EUR versus no PSH 2724.5 EUR, p = 0.938) or number of visits to a stoma therapist (p = 0.987) was seen, regardless of the presence or not of a PSH.

CONCLUSIONS

PSH appears not to affect costs due to colostomy appliances or the need to visit a stoma therapist, in the first year. The lesson to be learnt is that PSHs are not a driver for costs. Other factors may be determinants of the cost of a colostomy, including manufacturers' price and persuasion, means of procurement, and presence of guidelines.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Complications of preventive loop ileostomy versus colostomy: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Preventive colostomy is required for colorectal surgery, and the incidence of complications associated with ileostomy and colostomy remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications between ileostomy and colostomy procedures.

METHODS

Data analysis was conducted on 30 studies, and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed on five studies. The basic indicators, such as stoma prolapse, leak, wound infection, ileus, and a series of other indicators, were compared.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed with complications other than stoma prolapse. Meta-analysis and TSA showed that the incidence of ileostomy prolapse was lower than that of colostomy prolapse, and the difference was statistically significant. Apart from the four complications listed above, the general data analysis showed differences in incidence between the two groups. The incidence of skin irritation, parastomal hernia, dehydration, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections was higher with ileostomy than with colostomy. In contrast, the incidence of parastomal fistula, stenosis, hemorrhage, and enterocutaneous fistula was higher with colostomy than with ileostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

There were differences in the incidence of ileostomy and colostomy complications in the selected studies, with a low incidence of ileostomy prolapse.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022303133.

Assessment of Urostomy Parastomal Herniation Forces Using Incisional Prevention Strategies with an Abdominal Fascia Model

Background

Approximately 10 000 patients undergo cystectomy/ileal conduit annually in the USA, of whom over 70% subsequently develop a parastomal hernia (PSH). Still, no well-established "best" practice for stoma creation to prevent a PSH exists.

Objective

To measure the relationship between incision size/type/material and axial tension force (ATF) as a surrogate for herniation force, using several models to mimic abdominal fascia.

Design setting and participants

Abdominal fascia models included silicone membrane, ex vivo porcine, and embalmed human cadaveric fascia. A dynamometer pulled a Foley catheter (20 mm/min) with the balloon inflated to 125% incision (linear, cruciate, and circular) diameter using a motorized positioning system. The maximum ATF before herniation was recorded. The study was repeated in unused silicone/tissue for suture reinforcement. We evaluated silicone, ex vivo porcine, and human abdominal fascia.

Intervention

Incision sizes (1-3 cm) in 0.5-cm increments were evaluated in silicone. A 3-cm incision was used in porcine/human tissue.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

ATF for herniation was recorded/compared across incision types/sizes using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests as appropriate, with α = 0.05.

Results and limitations

Linear incision ATF was significantly greater than cruciate and circular incisions. A cruciate incision had significantly greater ATF than a circular incision. In cadaveric tissue, incisions were significantly greater for linear (34.5 ± 12.8 N) versus cruciate (15.3 ± 2.9 N, p = 0.004) and for cruciate versus circular (p = 0.023) incisions. Results were similar in ex vivo porcine fascia and silicone. Reinforcement with a suture significantly increased ATF in all materials/incision sizes/types. The ex vivo nature is this study's main limitation.

Conclusions

This study suggests that urostomy fascial incision type may influence ATF required for herniation. Linear incisions may be preferable. Urostomy reinforcement may significantly increase ATF required for a PSH. These data may help establish best practices for PSH risk reduction.

Patient summary

The results of this study illustrate that urostomy fascia incision type may influence the force required to create a parastomal hernia. Linear incisions may be preferable.

Prophylactic Mesh Placement With Ileal Conduit: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of mesh placement in patients undergoing ileal conduit urinary diversion for bladder cancer. Long-term studies have shown that parastomal hernias (PSH) occur in more than half of all stomas. Mesh prophylaxis has been shown to reduce PSH after end-colostomy and ileal conduits. However, no cost-effectiveness studies on mesh prophylaxis have been performed for this population.

METHODS

We created a Markov model incorporating the costs and effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis for patients undergoing radical cystectomy and ileal conduit construction. Costs were obtained from the literature and adjusted to 2022 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of our model.

RESULTS

In stage I-IV bladder cancer, prophylactic mesh placement was costlier, but more effective in providing quality of life compared with no mesh placement at index surgery. Average incremental cost between the 2 strategies across all stages was an additional $897 when mesh was utilized. Incremental effectiveness averaged 0.49 additional QALY across all stages. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2114.71/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that benefit of mesh placement was sensitive to the probability of mesh infection.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing ileal conduit urinary diversion for bladder cancer, mesh prophylaxis at the time of radical cystectomy is an overall cost-effective strategy in preventing PSH for patients presenting with all stages of bladder cancer.

Parastomal Hernia Rates and Exercise After Ostomy Surgery

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias are common and negatively affect patient's lives. We hypothesized that physical activity (or lack thereof) might be associated with the presence of parastomal hernia. If so, this might be an actionable target for prevention.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine rates of and risk factors for parastomal hernias in patients with a permanent ostomy.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort and survey study. Postal survey included questions about parastomal hernia, symptoms, lifestyle, and validated instruments to measure stoma quality of life and physical activity. Medical record abstraction was conducted for clinical comorbidities.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in a single large academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent operations that included a permanent urostomy, colostomy, and/or ileostomy between 2014 and 2018 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Parastomal hernia (self-reported) and physical activity, measured in total metabolic equivalent-minutes/week, were our main outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 443 of 724 patients responded (response rate, 61.2%). Two hundred twelve patients (47.9%) had urostomies, 160 (36.1%) had colostomies, and 99 (22.3%) had ileostomies. One hundred twenty-eight patients (29.7%) had a parastomal hernia, with rates of 27.1% for urostomy, 40.0% for colostomy, and 23.7% for ileostomy. There was a statistically significant association between less exercise and higher incidence of parastomal hernia (median, 579 metabolic equivalent-minutes/week for those with parastomal hernias vs 1689 metabolic equivalent-minutes/week for those without; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The association between physical activity and parastomal hernia may be confounded by obesity or the possibility that patients with parastomal hernia may be limited physically by their hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Parastomal hernia rates remain high in modern surgical practice. This study shows an association between patients' physical activity and the presence of a parastomal hernia, with a higher rate among patients who exercise less. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B910 .

TASAS DE HERNIA PARAESTOMAL Y EJERCICIO DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA DE OSTOMA

ANTECEDENTES:Las hernias paraostomales son complicaciones comunes después de la cirugía de ostomía y afectan la calidad de vida de los pacientes. Nuestra hipótesis es que la actividad física de los pacientes (o la falta de ella) podría estar asociada con la presencia de hernia paraostomal. Si es así, este podría ser un objetivo utilizable para la prevención.OBJETIVO:Determinar las tasas y los factores de riesgo de las hernias paraostomales en pacientes que se sometieron a una cirugía que resultó en una ostomía permanente.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de cohorte y encuesta. La encuesta postal incluyó preguntas sobre hernia paraostomal, síntomas, estilo de vida e instrumentos validados para medir la calidad de vida del paciente ostomizado y la actividad física. Se realizó la confección de gráficos para las comorbilidades clínicas.ESCENARIO:Centro médico académico de gran tamañoPACIENTES:Pacientes que se sometieron a operaciones que incluyeron una urostomía permanente, colostomía y/o ileostomía entre 2014 y 2018.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La hernia paraostomal (autoinformada) y la actividad física, medidas en equivalente metabólico de actividad total-minutos/semana, fueron nuestras principales medidas de resultado. También se evaluó la calidad de vida.RESULTADOS:Un total de 443 de 724 pacientes respondieron a la encuesta (tasa de respuesta 61,2%). 212 pacientes (47,9%) tenían urostomías, 160 (36,1%) colostomías y 99 (22,3%) ileostomías. 128 pacientes (29,7%) tenían hernia paraostomal, con tasas de 27,1% para urostomía, 40,0% para colostomía y 23,7% para ileostomía. Hubo una asociación estadísticamente significativa entre menos ejercicio y una mayor incidencia de hernia paraostomal (mediana: 579 equivalentes metabólicos - minutos/semana para aquellos con hernias paraostomales versus 1689 para aquellos sin hernias; p = 0,001).LIMITACIONES:La asociación entre la actividad física y la hernia paraostomal puede confundirse con la obesidad o con el hecho de que los pacientes con hernia paraostomal pueden tener menos actividad física debido a su hernia.CONCLUSIONES:Las tasas de hernia paraostomal siguen siendo altas en la práctica quirúrgica moderna y las hernias se asocian con una peor calidad de vida. Este estudio muestra una asociación entre la actividad física de los pacientes y la presencia de una hernia paraostomal, con una tasa más alta entre los pacientes que hacen menos ejercicio. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B910 . (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

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.

Parastomal hernia repair: a five-year experience from a single centre in the UK

Parastomal hernias can affect significantly quality of life in patients who often had underwent major operations. The incidence and recurrence is still high although many techniques have been introduced to improve outcomes. Hence, there is still no agreement on what procedure has better results when it comes to repairing a parostomal hernia. Our aim is to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and open parastomal hernia repair in terms of recurrence, reoperations, post-operative complications and length of stay. Sixty-three parastomal hernia repairs were performed in a single Colorectal Centre over a period of 4 years. Eighteen procedures were performed laparoscopically and 45 open. All the 7 emergency procedures were approached open. Both the techniques showed to be safe with post-operative major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo III or above) of 9.52%. The laparoscopic group was found to have a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04) and earlier start of stoma function (p = 0.01), more uneventful recoveries (0.02) and less minor post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo I or II-p = 0.01,) but similar recurrence rate (p = 0.41). In the open group, the placement of a mesh showed to reduce the rate of recurrence (p = 0.0001). However, this was not found in the laparoscopic approach. In conclusion, the laparoscopic approach showed do give less post-operative complications and a shorter length of stay, with no benefit in the recurrence rate. Considering the open technique, the use of a mesh seemed to reduce the rate of recurrence.

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.

Has network meta-analysis resolved the controversies related to bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery?

AIM

There are discrepancies in the guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous antibiotics (IV) are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) demonstrated that the addition of OA reduced incisional surgical site infections (iSSIs) by more than 50%. We aimed to perform a NMA including only the highest quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in order to determine the ranking of different treatment strategies and assess these RCTs for methodological problems that may affect the conclusions of the NMAs.

METHOD

A NMA was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. RCTs of adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate antibiotic cover and with at least 250 participants recruited, clear definition of endpoints and duration of follow-up extending beyond discharge from hospital were included. The search included Medline, Embase, Cochrane and SCOPUS databases. Primary outcomes were iSSI and anastomotic leak (AL). Statistical analysis was performed in Stata v.15.1 using frequentist routines.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs including 5107 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV (2218 patients), IV + OA (460 patients), MBP + IV (1405 patients), MBP + IV + OA (538 patients) and OA (486 patients). The likelihood of iSSI was significantly lower for IV + OA (rank 1) and MBP + IVA + OA (rank 2), reducing iSSIs by more than 50%. There were no differences between treatments for AL. Methodological issues included differences in definition, assessment and frequency of primary endpoint infections and the limited number of participants included in some treatment options.

CONCLUSION

While this NMA supports the addition of OA to IV to reduce iSSI it also highlights unanswered questions and the need for well-designed pragmatic RCTs.

A Modified Surgical Technique to Prevent Parastomal Hernia

An extraperitoneal colostomy is not sufficiently effective in preventing parastomal hernias. On the basis of anatomic structures and mechanical principles, we modified this surgical technique by preserving the integrity of the posterior rectus abdominis sheath to prevent parastomal hernia, and we applied it clinically.

Incidence and risk factors for parastomal hernia with a permanent colostomy

AIM

This study aims to explore the incidence and risk factors for permanent colostomy complicated with a parastomal hernia (PSH) after rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of gastrointestinal surgery performed from January 2013 to December 2017 in patients with colorectal cancer treated at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University. The relevant clinical variables of the patient were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier, univariate, and Cox multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the influencing factors and morbidity of PSH.

RESULTS

Among the 211 patients, 65 developed PSH. The cumulative incidence reached 33.5% at 62 months. In the multivariate Cox survival analysis, the results showed that being a woman, aged ≥65 years, having a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m² , diabetes, and Clavien-Dindo Grade III and IV complications were risk factors for the occurrence of PSH.

CONCLUSION

In our study, the incidence of PSH increased annually and reached a maximum of 33.5% after 62 months. Among the patient-related factors, female sex, age ≥65 years, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² , diabetes, and postoperative Clavien-Dindo Grade III and IV complications were significantly associated with the development of PSH. Therefore, intervention measures to prevent patients with this risk factor are advisable.

Biologic vs Synthetic Mesh for Parastomal Hernia Repair: Post Hoc Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias are often repaired with mesh to reduce recurrences, but the presence of an ostomy increases the wound class from clean to clean-contaminated/contaminated and makes the choice of mesh more controversial than in a strictly clean case. We aimed to compare the outcomes of biologic and synthetic mesh for parastomal hernia repair.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a post hoc analysis of parastomal hernia repairs in a randomized trial comparing biologic and synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. Outcomes included rates of surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), reoperations, stoma/mesh-related adverse events, parastomal hernia recurrence rates (clinical, patient-reported, and radiographic) at 2 years, quality of life (EQ-5D, EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale, and Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey), and hospital costs up to 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients underwent parastomal hernia repair (57 biologic (53%) and 51 synthetic (47%)). Demographic and hernia characteristics were similar between the two groups. No significant differences in SSOPI rates or reoperations were observed between mesh types. Four mesh erosions into an ostomy requiring reoperations (2 biologic vs 2 synthetic) occurred. At 2 years, parastomal hernia recurrence rates were similar for biologic and synthetic mesh (17 (29.8%) vs 13 (25.5%), respectively; P=.77). Overall and hernia-related quality of life improved from baseline and were similar between the two groups at 2 years. Median total hospital cost and median mesh cost were higher for biologic compared to synthetic mesh.

CONCLUSION

Biologic and synthetic mesh have similar wound morbidity, reoperations, 2-year hernia recurrence rates, and quality of life in parastomal hernia repairs. Cost should be considered in mesh choice for parastomal hernia repairs.

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.

Use of prophylactic stoma mesh is a risk factor for developing rectus abdominis muscle atrophy

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible risk factors for developing a parastomal hernia (PSH) in a cohort of rectal cancer patients with and without the application of a retro-muscular prophylactic mesh. The evaluated risk factors included the position of the stoma in the rectus abdominis muscle (RAM), RAM atrophy and shift of abdominal wall midline structures.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients treated with an abdominoperineal excision or Hartmann’s procedure between 2002 and 2015 at Västmanland Hospital, Sweden was included. Postoperative CT examinations were retrospectively reviewed regarding the presence of PSH and RAM atrophy and for measurements such as position of the stoma in the RAM.

Results

116 patients were included, with a median age of 71 years. 70 patients received a prophylactic stoma mesh. 55 patients (47%) had a parastomal hernia at three-year follow-up. Rectus abdominis muscle atrophy was significantly higher in the mesh group compared with the non-mesh group (37% vs 2%; P = 0.04). RAM atrophy was a significant independent protective factor for developing a PSH (P = 0.007; OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03–0.55).

Conclusion

Placement of a prophylactic retro-muscular stoma mesh resulted in a high frequency of RAM atrophy distal to the stomal aperture and patients with such atrophy had a lower risk of developing a PSH.

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.

Is absorbable mesh useful in preventing parastomal hernia after emergency surgery? The PARTHENOPE study

PURPOSE

Colostomy is a frequent event in oncological or inflammatory bowel diseases. Its related morbidity includes retraction, infection and parastomal hernia (PH), which is a quite common late complication. Several surgical options are available for PH repair, the majority including mesh. However, results are often disappointing with relevant recurrence rates, up to 33%. The study aim was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of prophylactic biosynthetic mesh (BIO-A^®, polyglycolide-trimethylene carbonate copolymer) placed during colostomy fashioning, in reducing PH. A prospective randomized controlled double-blind trial was conducted from January 2014 to December 2019 to compare conventional end-colostomy with end-colostomy reinforced with BIO-A mesh in ante-rectus position in patients undergoing colon diversion in emergency surgery.

METHODS

Patients were clinically followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months and received a CT scan at 6 and 12 months. The postoperative morbidity and wound events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

55 patients receiving conventional colostomy considered as Control Group and 55 patients receiving BIO-A mesh supported colostomy (Mesh Group) were included in the study. At 12 months, the incidence of PH was 9 (12.7%) and 24 (43.6%) in the Mesh Group and Control Group, respectively (p < 0.05). Postoperative morbidity was similar between Mesh Group and Control Group (7 [12.7%] vs 4 [7.3%], respectively; p = 0.340). The multivariable analysis showed that not using a mesh (p = 0.042), age > 70 years (p = 0.041), diabetes (p < 0.001), colon dilation > 7 cm (p < 0.0001) and COPD (p = 0.009) were all related with postoperative PH.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic BIO-A mesh positioning during colostomy is an effective procedure reducing PH incidence at a 1 years follow-up guaranteeing low postoperative morbidity. STUDY DATASET IS AVAILABLE ON CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV ID

NCT04436887.

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.

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.

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.