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

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.

Initial and recurrent management of parastomal hernia after cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: a 10 year single-center experience

PURPOSE

The management of parastomal hernia following cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion is challenging due to its specific nature and a high recurrence rate, yet is poorly described.

METHODS

We retrospectively searched the clinical data warehouse of our center for patients who had primary parastomal hernia repair following cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion. The primary endpoint was recurrence of parastomal hernia; secondary endpoints were postoperative complications and surgical management of recurrences.

RESULTS

From January 1st 2012 to January 1st 2022, 35 patients were included in the study, 13 patients (37.1%) were operated with the Keyhole technique and 22 patients (62.9%) with the Sugarbaker technique. The median follow-up was 24 months. The main complication was urinary tract infection, in 6 patients (17.4%). Postoperative complications were severe in 4 patients (11.4%), 3 (8.6%) for prosthesis extraction due to infection. Ninety-day mortality was null. Eight patients (22.9%) had a symptomatic recurrence of parastomal hernia leading to a second surgery, 4 patients (30.7%) in the Keyhole group and 4 patients (18.2%) in the Sugarbaker group. Surgical management of recurrences involved repair without synthetic mesh in 4 patients (50%) due to difficult adhesiolysis, leading to a third surgery for 3 patients (37.5%).

CONCLUSION

The high rates of recurrence observed with the Keyhole technique, in particular, but also with the Sugarbaker technique, suggest that these techniques should no longer be used for the repair of parastomal hernia after ileal conduit urinary diversion. New preventive and curative approaches need to be explored to improve the surgical management of parastomal hernia.

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.

Umbrella review of systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of using mesh in the prevention of parastomal hernias

BACKGROUND

This umbrella review aimed to summarize the findings and conclusions of published systematic reviews on the prophylactic role of mesh against parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

PRISMA-compliant umbrella overview of systematic reviews on the role of mesh in prevention of parastomal hernias was conducted. PubMed and Scopus were searched through November 2023. Main outcomes were efficacy and safety of mesh. Efficacy was assessed by the rates of clinically and radiologically detected hernias and the need for surgical repair, while safety was assessed by the rates of overall complications.

RESULTS

19 systematic reviews were assessed; 7 included only patients with end colostomy and 12 included patients with either ileostomy or colostomy. The use of mesh significantly reduced the risk of clinically detected parastomal hernias in all reviews except one. Seven reviews reported a significantly lower risk of radiologically detected parastomal hernias with the use of mesh. The pooled hazards ratio of clinically detected and radiologically detected parastomal hernias was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.26-0.41) and 0.55 (95%CI: 0.45-0.68), respectively. Six reviews reported a significant reduction in the need for surgical repair when a mesh was used whereas six reviews found a similar need for hernia repair. The pooled hazards ratio for surgical hernia repair was 0.46 (95%CI: 0.35-0.62). Eight reviews reported similar complications in the two groups. The pooled hazard ratio of complications was 0.81 (95%CI: 0.66-1).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of surgical mesh is likely effective and safe in the prevention of parastomal hernias without an increased risk of overall complications.

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.

Development and pilot testing of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia

AIM

The aim was to develop and pilot a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia (PSH).

METHODS

Standard questionnaire development was undertaken (phases 1-3). An initial list of questionnaire domains was identified from validated colorectal cancer PROMs and from semi-structured interviews with patients with a PSH and health professionals (phase 1). Domains were operationalized into items in a provisional questionnaire, and 'think-aloud' patient interviews explored face validity and acceptability (phase 2). The updated questionnaire was piloted in patients with a stoma who had undergone colorectal surgery and had a computed tomography scan available for review. Patient-reported symptoms were examined in relation to PSH (phase 3). Three sources determined PSH presence: (i) data about PSH presence recorded in hospital notes, (ii) independent expert review of the computed tomography scan and (iii) patient report of being informed of a PSH by a health professional.

RESULTS

For phase 1, 169 and 127 domains were identified from 70 PROMs and 29 interviews respectively. In phase 2, 14 domains specific to PSH were identified and operationalized into questionnaire items. Think-aloud interviews led to three minor modifications. In phase 3, 44 completed questionnaires were obtained. Missing data were few: 5/660 items. PSH symptom scores associated with PSH presence varied between different data sources. The scale with the most consistent differences between PSH presence and absence and all data sources was the stoma appearance scale.

CONCLUSION

A PROM to examine the symptoms of PSH has been developed from the literature and views of key informants. Although preliminary testing shows it to be understandable and acceptable it is uncertain if it is sensitive to PSH-specific symptoms and further psychometric testing is needed.

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.

Analysis of recurrence and risk factors in laparoscopic sandwich technique for parastomal hernia repair

INTRODUCTION

Parastomal hernias are frequent and highly recurrent. The sandwich technique is a combination of the keyhole and Sugarbaker techniques, using a double intraperitoneal mesh. The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of the sandwich technique, specifically focusing on recurrence rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Observational retrospective study conducted in two tertiary referral centers in Catalonia, Spain. All consecutive patients who underwent parastomal hernia repair using the sandwich technique between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2021 were included.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients underwent the laparoscopic sandwich technique for parastomal hernia repair. The overall recurrence rate was 7.9% (3/38), with a median follow-up of 39 months (IQR: 12.3-56.5). According to the EHS classification for parastomal hernia, there were 47.4% (18/38) type I defects, 10.5% (4/38) type II defects, 28.9% (11/38) type III defects, and 13.2% (5/38) type IV defects. The used mesh was predominantly TiMesh® (76.3%; 29/38), followed by DynaMesh® IPOM (23.7%; 9/38). Patients with recurrence exhibited higher rates of seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, and one case of early recurrence attributed to mesh retraction. Consequently, postoperative complications emerged as the primary risk factor for hernia recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The sandwich technique demonstrated recurrence rates consistent with those reported in the existing literature.