Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) Collaborative and the West Midlands Research Collaborative. Feasibility study from a randomized controlled trial of standard closure of a stoma site vs biological mesh reinforcement

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Predictors of hernia after loop ileostomy closure: a single-center retrospective review

PURPOSE

Our aims were to determine the rate of incisional hernia after closure of a loop ileostomy (LI) and to identify any perioperative risk factors that may be associated with hernia development.

METHODS

We performed an IRB-approved retrospective review that included consecutive patients who underwent LI closure from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. The primary outcome was identification of hernia on physical exam or by abdominal imaging. A stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors of ileostomy site hernia.

RESULTS

A total of 243 consecutive patients had LI closure during the study timeframe. The overall rate of hernia formation was 11.9% (29/243). The median time to discovery of the hernia was 16.4 (range, 2.2-55.9) months with a median follow-up time of 49 months. Although LI performed in conjunction with sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis consisted of only 19% of ileostomy cases, 62% of hernias were (18/29) identified in this cohort. Rates of hernia formation increased with respect to body mass index (underweight 0%; normal 4.6%; overweight 13.8%; obese 21%). The multivariable model identified increased BMI (underweight/normal weight versus overweight: OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.06-16.04; underweight/normal weight versus obese: OR 8.74, 95% CI 2.17-35.23) and surgical indication (reference variable: diverticulitis; rectal cancer: OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.76; Crohn's/ulcerative colitis: OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.53; other: OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.64) as significant predictors of ileostomy site hernia.

CONCLUSION

The development of a hernia at the site of LI closure was influenced mostly by BMI, surgical indication, and operative time.

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

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

Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site (ROCSS): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Closure of an abdominal stoma, a common elective operation, is associated with frequent complications; one of the commonest and impactful is incisional hernia formation. We aimed to investigate whether biological mesh (collagen tissue matrix) can safely reduce the incidence of incisional hernias at the stoma closure site.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled trial (ROCSS) done in 37 hospitals across three European countries (35 UK, one Denmark, one Netherlands), patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure were randomly assigned using a computer-based algorithm in a 1:1 ratio to either biological mesh reinforcement or closure with sutures alone (control). Training in the novel technique was standardised across hospitals. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of clinically detectable hernia 2 years after randomisation (intention to treat). A sample size of 790 patients was required to identify a 40% reduction (25% to 15%), with 90% power (15% drop-out rate). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02238964.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 28, 2012, and Nov 11, 2015, of 1286 screened patients, 790 were randomly assigned. 394 (50%) patients were randomly assigned to mesh closure and 396 (50%) to standard closure. In the mesh group, 373 (95%) of 394 patients successfully received mesh and in the control group, three patients received mesh. The clinically detectable hernia rate, the primary outcome, at 2 years was 12% (39 of 323) in the mesh group and 20% (64 of 327) in the control group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·43-0·90; p=0·012). In 455 patients for whom 1 year postoperative CT scans were available, there was a lower radiologically defined hernia rate in mesh versus control groups (20 [9%] of 229 vs 47 [21%] of 226, adjusted RR 0·42, 95% CI 0·26-0·69; p<0·001). There was also a reduction in symptomatic hernia (16%, 52 of 329 vs 19%, 64 of 331; adjusted relative risk 0·83, 0·60-1·16; p=0·29) and surgical reintervention (12%, 42 of 344 vs 16%, 54 of 346: adjusted relative risk 0·78, 0·54-1·13; p=0·19) at 2 years, but this result did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences were seen in wound infection rate, seroma rate, quality of life, pain scores, or serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

Reinforcement of the abdominal wall with a biological mesh at the time of stoma closure reduced clinically detectable incisional hernia within 24 months of surgery and with an acceptable safety profile. The results of this study support the use of biological mesh in stoma closure site reinforcement to reduce the early formation of incisional hernias.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Research for Patient Benefit and Allergan.

Value of surgical pilot and feasibility study protocols

BACKGROUND

RCTs in surgery are challenging owing to well established methodological issues. Well designed pilot and feasibility studies (PFS) may help overcome such issues to inform successful main trial design and conduct. This study aimed to analyse protocols of UK-funded studies to explore current use of PFS in surgery and identify areas for practice improvement.

METHODS

PFS of surgical interventions funded by UK National Institute for Health Research programmes from 2005 to 2015 were identified, and original study protocols and associated publications sourced. Data extracted included study design characteristics, reasons for performing the work including perceived uncertainties around conducting a definitive main trial, and whether the studies had been published.

RESULTS

Thirty-five surgical studies were identified, of which 29 were randomized, and over half (15 of 29) included additional methodological components (such as qualitative work examining recruitment, and participant surveys studying current interventions). Most studies focused on uncertainties around recruitment (32 of 35), with far fewer tackling uncertainties specific to surgery, such as intervention stability, implementation or delivery (10 of 35). Only half (19 of 35) had made their results available publicly, to date.

CONCLUSION

The full potential of pretrial work to inform and optimize definitive surgical studies is not being realized.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Preloop trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A temporary loop ileostomy, which is used to decrease the risk of symptomatic anastamotic leakage after anterior resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), is traditionally closed without any mesh. However, as 44% of incisional site hernias need further repair after stoma closure, attention has increasingly been paid to the use of mesh. Research on the prevention of these hernias is scarce, and no studies comparing different meshes exist.

METHOD/DESIGN

The Preloop trial (Clinical Trials NCT03445936) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial to compare synthetic mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and biological implants (Permacol™, Medtronic) at a retromuscular sublay position for the prevention of incisional site hernias after loop-ileostomy closure. The main endpoints in this trial are infections at 30-day follow-up and the incidence of hernias clinically or on CT scan at 10 months after closure of the stoma. The secondary endpoints are other complications within 30 days of surgery graded with the Clavien-Dindo classification, reoperation rate, operating time, length of stay, quality of life measured with RAND-36, and incidence of hernia over a 5-year follow-up period. A total of 100 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio.

DISCUSSION

This is a pilot trial that will be undertaken to provide some novel evidence on the safety profile and efficiency of both synthetic mesh and biological implants for the prevention of incisional hernias after closure by temporary loop ileostomy. The hypothesis is that synthetic mesh is economical but equally safe and at least as effective as biological implants in hernia prevention and in contaminated surgical sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03445936 . Registered on 7 February 2018.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Appraising the uptake and use of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations: A review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of new surgical innovations is complex and variably regulated, and historically the quality of surgical studies has been criticized. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term monitoring) Framework was established to provide a pathway for evaluating surgical innovations at each stage of their development in order to produce high quality surgical research. Since the inception of IDEAL in 2009, there has been no assessment of its use. In this review, we look at the uptake and usage of IDEAL by examining the published literature.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search to identify all of the publications that cited IDEAL and included only those papers that intentionally used IDEAL as part of the study methodology. We then characterized these publications by year of publication, specialty, and geographical location. We performed a critical appraisal of Stage 1, 2a, and 2b studies in order to assess the degree to which authors have correctly followed the Framework and Recommendations.

RESULTS

We found 790 citations of IDEAL publications, and after abstract and full-text screening, 38 prospective studies for a surgical innovation that used IDEAL remained. We saw an overall increase in the uptake of IDEAL, with a predominance in urology and origin in the United Kingdom. The critical appraisal showed that although authors identified their project as using IDEAL, they often failed to include key IDEAL characteristics; this was especially true for the features unique to IDEAL Stages 2a and 2b.

CONCLUSION

It is evident from the large number of studies citing IDEAL that the importance and challenges of reporting surgical research is well recognized among researchers. There is growing enthusiasm for using IDEAL but the current level of understanding of the Recommendations is low. Clearer and more comprehensive explanation of the application of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations is needed to guide surgical researchers undertaking IDEAL based studies of surgical innovations.

Stomal Closure: Strategies to Prevent Incisional Hernia

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

the Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) Collaborative and the West Midlands Research Collaborative. Randomized controlled trial of standard closure of a stoma site vs biological mesh reinforcement: study protocol of the ROCSS trial

BACKGROUND

Closure of complex and contaminated abdominal wounds is challenging and carries risks, including wound dehiscence and incisional hernia. Hernia formation at closed stoma sites occurs in up to 30% of patients. Use of biological meshes in these situations may provide a safe method of reducing these complications, especially long-term incisional hernias.

METHOD

The Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) study is a Phase III multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an internal feasibility study. The primary objective of ROCSS is to assess whether a biological mesh (collagen tissue matrix) reduces the incidence of clinically detectable stoma closure site hernias at 2 years compared with standard closure techniques. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either standard suture (nonmesh) closure or closure with an intra-abdominal biological mesh reinforcement. Patients and outcome assessors are masked to treatment allocation. ROCSS aims to recruit 560 patients, with an option to recruit to 790 patients to increase power. The primary outcome measure is the occurrence of clinically detectable hernias years 2 years postrandomization. The secondary outcome measures are the radiological hernia rate at 1 year, incidence of symptomatic hernia, the surgical complication/re-intervention rate, quality of life, postoperative pain and cost-benefit analysis.

DISCUSSION

ROCSS is a multicentre RCT assessing the placement of a biological mesh at the site of stoma closure on clinical hernia rate. Our hypothesis is that reinforcing the stoma closure site with a collagen mesh is superior to the standard technique in reducing the risk of herniation at 2 years. These findings could influence future closure of stomas and other complex and/or contaminated abdominal wounds in settings around the world.

Recommendations for Randomised Trials in Surgical Oncology

Trials of surgical procedures in the treatment of malignant disease face a unique set of challenges. This review aimed to describe recommendations for the design, delivery and reporting of randomised trials in surgical oncology. A literature search was carried out without date limits to identify articles related to trial methodology research in surgery and surgical oncology. A narrative review was framed around two open National Institute of Health Research portfolio trials in colon and rectal cancer: the STAR-TREC trial (ISRCTN14240288) and the ROCCS trial (ISRCTN46330337). Twelve specific challenges were highlighted: standardisation of technique; pilot and feasibility studies; balancing treatments; the recruitment pathway; outcome measures; patient and public representation; trainee-led networks; randomisation; novel techniques and training; learning curves; blinding; follow-up. Evidence-based recommendations were made for the future design and conduct of surgical oncology trials. Better understanding of the challenges facing trials in the surgical treatment of cancer will accelerate high-quality evaluation and rapid adoption of innovation for the benefit of patient care.

The incidence of incisional hernias following ileostomy reversal in colorectal cancer patients treated with anterior resection

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to identify the rate of incisional hernia formation following ileostomy reversal in patients who underwent anterior resection for colorectal cancer. In addition, we aimed to ascertain risk factors for the development of reversal-site incisional hernias and to record the characteristics of the resultant hernias. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using a prospectively compiled database of colorectal cancer patients who were treated with anterior resection, we identified individuals who had undergone both ileostomy formation and subsequent reversal of their ileostomies from January 2005 to December 2014. Medical records were reviewed to record descriptive patient data about risk factors for hernia formation, operative details and any subsequent operations. Computed tomography reports were reviewed to identify the number, site and characteristics of incisional hernias. RESULTS A total of 121 patients were included in this study; 14.9% (n = 18) developed an incisional hernia at the ileostomy reversal site; 17.4% (n = 21) at a non-ileostomy site and 6.6% (n = 8) developed both. The reversal-site hernias were smaller both in width and length compared with the non-ileostomy-site hernias. Risk factors for the development of reversal-site incisional hernias were higher body mass index (BMI), lower age, open surgery, longer reversal time and a history of previous hernias. We did not detect a difference in the size of the incisional hernias that developed in patients with these specific risk factors. CONCLUSIONS Incisional hernias are a significant complication of ileostomy reversal. Further evaluation of the use of prophylactic mesh to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias may be worthwhile.