Prophylactic mesh placement of permanent stomas at index operation for colorectal cancer

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Incisional hernia prevention and use of mesh. A narrative review

Incisional hernias are a very common problem, with an estimated incidence around 15-20% of all laparotomies. Evisceration is another important problem, with a lower rate (2.5-3%) but severe consequences for patients. Prevention of both complications is an essential objective of correct patient treatment due to the improved quality of life and cost savings. This narrative review intends to provide an update on incisional hernia and evisceration prevention. We analyze the current criteria for proper abdominal wall closure and the possibility to add prosthetic reinforcement in certain cases requiring it. Parastomal, trocar-site hernias and hernias developed after stoma closure are included in this review.

Synthetic vs biologic mesh for the repair and prevention of parastomal hernia

AIM

To outline current evidence regarding prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia and to compare use of synthetic and biologic mesh.

METHODS

Relevant databases were searched for studies reporting hernia recurrence, wound and mesh infection, other complications, surgical techniques and mortality. Weighted pooled proportions (95%CI) were calculated using StatsDirect. Heterogeneity concerning outcome measures was determined using Cochran’s Q test and was quantified using I². Random and fixed effects models were used. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager software with the statistical significance set at P ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were included: 5 reporting biologic mesh repairs; 21, synthetic mesh repairs; and 18, prophylactic mesh repairs. Most of the studies were retrospective cohorts of low to moderate quality. The hernia recurrence rate was higher after undergoing biologic compared to synthetic mesh repair (24.0% vs 15.1%, P = 0.01). No significant difference was found concerning wound and mesh infection (5.6% vs 2.8%; 0% vs 3.1%). Open and laparoscopic techniques were comparable regarding recurrences and infections. Prophylactic mesh placement reduced the occurrence of a parastomal hernia (OR = 0.20, P < 0.0006) without increasing wound infection [7.8% vs 8.2% (OR = 1.04, P = 0.91)] and without differences between the mesh types.

CONCLUSION

There is no superiority of biologic over synthetic mesh for parastomal hernia repair. Prophylactic mesh placement during the initial surgery significantly reduces parastomal hernia occurrence regardless of the mesh type.

Prophylactic Mesh Placement During Formation of an End-colostomy Reduces the Rate of Parastomal Hernia: Short-term Results of the Dutch PREVENT-trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of parastomal hernias (PSHs) after end-colostomy formation using a polypropylene mesh in a randomized controlled trial versus conventional colostomy formation.

BACKGROUND

A PSH is the most frequent complication after stoma formation. Symptoms may range from mild abdominal pain to life-threatening obstruction and strangulation. The treatment of a PSH is notoriously difficult and recurrences up to 20% have been reported despite the use of mesh. This has moved surgical focus toward prevention.

METHODS

Augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retro-muscular lightweight polypropylene mesh was compared with the traditional formation of a colostomy. In total, 150 patients (1:1 ratio) were included. The incidence of a PSH, morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness was measured after 1 year of follow-up.

RESULTS

There was no difference between groups regarding demographics and predisposing factors for PSH. Three out of 67 patients (4.5%) in the mesh group and 16 out of 66 patients (24.2%) in the nonmesh group developed a PSH (P = 0.0011). No statistically significant difference was found in infections, concomitant hernias, SF-36 questionnaire, Von Korff pain score, and cost-effectiveness between both study groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular lightweight polypropylene mesh at the ostomy site significantly reduces the incidence of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

Prophylactic mesh placement for the PREvention of paraSTOmal hernias: The PRESTO systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Parastomal hernia (PH) is the most common complication after ostomy formation. Prophylactic mesh placement may be effective in reducing the rate of PH at the stoma site. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize the evidence with regard to the safety and effectiveness in comparison with the standard procedure without mesh placement and to identify important risk constellations.

Method

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library with no language or date restrictions. Randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) were included. The main outcomes of interest were PH (primary outcome) rate and stoma-related complications (secondary outcomes) such as stenosis or fistula. Statistical analysis included meta-analyses of pooled data and subgroup analyses.

Results

Eleven trials (eight RCTs; three nRCTs) with a total of 755 patients were included. PH rate varied from 0% to 59% in the intervention and from 20% to 94% in the control group. RCTs showed a significant reduction of PH rate in the mesh group (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.58, p = 0.034), whereas included nRCTs did not. No significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rates. Subgroup analyses showed superiority of non-absorbable meshes and sublay mesh positioning in open surgery.

Conclusion

Prophylactic mesh placement is safe and reduces PH rate. A recommendation for prophylactic non-absorbable meshes in a sublay position can be made for patients undergoing open colorectal operations with end-ostomies. Further research endeavors should focus on patient-oriented outcomes, not only PH rate, with respect to tailored treatment in specific patient populations.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia

BACKGROUND

Rates of parastomal hernia following stoma formation remain high. Previous systematic reviews suggested that prophylactic mesh reduces the rate of parastomal hernia; however, a larger trial has recently called this into question. The aim was to determine whether mesh placed at the time of primary stoma creation prevents parastomal hernia.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched using medical subject headings for parastomal hernia, mesh and prevention. Reference lists of identified studies, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were also searched. All randomized clinical trials were included. Two authors extracted data from each study independently using a purpose-designed sheet. Risk of bias was assessed by a tool based on that developed by Cochrane.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials were identified among 150 studies screened. In total 649 patients were included in the analysis (324 received mesh). Overall the rates of parastomal hernia were 53 of 324 (16·4 per cent) in the mesh group and 119 of 325 (36·6 per cent) in the non-mesh group (odds ratio 0·24, 95 per cent c.i. 0·12 to 0·50; P < 0·001). Mesh reduced the rate of parastomal hernia repair by 65 (95 per cent c.i. 28 to 85) per cent (P = 0·02). There were no differences in rates of parastomal infection, stomal stenosis or necrosis. Mesh type and position, and study quality did not have an independent effect on this relationship.

CONCLUSION

Mesh placed prophylactically at the time of stoma creation reduced the rate of parastomal hernia, without an increase in mesh-related complications.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Mesh in End-Colostomy Construction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia is a very common complication after colostomy, especially end-colostomy. It is unclear whether prophylactic placement of mesh at the time of stoma formation could prevent parastomal hernia formation after surgery for rectal cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh in end-colostomy construction.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched, covering records entered from their inception to September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stoma with mesh to stoma without mesh after surgery for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of parastomal hernia. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were obtained using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six RCTs containing 309 patients were included. Parastomal hernia occurred in 24.4 % (38 of 156) of patients with mesh and 50.3 % (77 of 153) of patients without mesh. Meta-analysis showed a lower incidence of parastomal hernia (RR, 0.42; 95 % CI 0.22-0.82) and reoperation related to parastomal hernia (RR, 0.23; 95 % CI 0.06-0.89) in patients with mesh. Stoma-related morbidity was similar between mesh group and non-mesh group (RR, 0.65; 95 % CI 0.33-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic placement of a mesh at the time of a stoma formation seems to be associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia and reoperation related to parastomal hernia after surgery for rectal cancer, but not the rate of stoma-related morbidity. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity among the studies.

Long-term assessment of parastomal hernia prevention by intra-peritoneal mesh reinforcement according to the modified Sugarbaker technique

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a very frequent complication after creation of a permanent colostomy. The aim of that study is to assess the safety and the long-term efficacy of an intra-peritoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) positioned at the time of primary stoma formation to prevent PSH occurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

That multicentre prospective study concerned 29 consecutive patients operated for cancer of the low rectum between 2008 and 2014. There were 14 men and 15 women with a median age of 73 years (range 39-88) and a BMI of 28 (range 21-43). All the patients had potentially curative abdominoperineal excision associated with IPOM reinforcement of the abdominal wall with a round non-slit composite mesh centred on the stoma site and covering the lateralized colon according to the modified Sugarbaker technique. The major outcomes analysed were operative time, complications related to mesh and PSH incidence. Patients were evaluated at 6-month intervals for the first 2 years and thereafter annually with physical examination and CT scan control. For PSH evaluation, we used the classification of Moreno-Matias.

RESULTS

Surgery was performed by laparoscopy in 24 patients and by laparotomy in 5; 17 had a trans-peritoneal colostomy and 12 an extra-peritoneal colostomy. The median size of the mesh was 15 cm (range 12-20), the operative time 225 min. (range 123-311) and the specific time for mesh placement 15 min. (range 10-30). With a median follow-up of 48 months (range 6-88), no mesh infection or complication requiring mesh removal were recorded. No patient developed a true PSH; two of them had a type Ia PSH (only containing the bowel forming the colostomy with a sac < 5 cm) and were totally asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

In our series, the incidence of PSH was 7 % and no specific mesh-related complication was noted. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement according to the modified Sugarbaker is an effective technique that addresses the issues related to the occurrence of PSH.

Prophylactic stoma mesh did not prevent parastomal hernias

PURPOSE

Parastomal herniation is reported in up to 50 % of patients with a colostomy. A prophylactic stoma mesh has been reported to reduce parastomal hernia rates. The aim of the study was to evaluate the rate of parastomal hernias in a population-based cohort of patients, operated with and without a prophylactic mesh at two different time periods.

METHODS

All rectal cancer patients operated with an abdominoperineal excision or Hartmann's procedure between 1996 and 2012 were included. From 2007, a prophylactic stoma mesh was placed in the retro-muscular plane. Patients were followed prospectively with clinical and computed tomography examinations.

RESULTS

There were no differences with regard to age, gender, pre-operative albumin levels, ASA score, body mass index (BMI), smoking or type of surgical resection between patients with (n = 71) and without a stoma mesh (n = 135). After a minimum follow-up of 1 year, 187 (91%) of the patients were alive and available for analysis. At clinical and computed tomography examinations, exactly the same parastomal hernia rates were found in the two groups, viz, 25 and 53%, respectively (p = 0.95 and p = 0.18). The hernia sac contained omentum or intestinal loops in 26 (81%) versus 26 (60%) patients with and without a mesh, respectively (p = 0.155). In the multivariate analyses, high BMI was associated with parastomal hernia formation.

CONCLUSIONS

A prophylactic stoma mesh did not reduce the rate of clinically or computed tomography-verified parastomal hernias. High BMI was associated with an increased risk of parastomal hernia formation regardless of prophylactic stoma mesh.

Economics of abdominal wall reconstruction

The economic aspects of abdominal wall reconstruction are frequently overlooked, although understandings of the financial implications are essential in providing cost-efficient health care. Ventral hernia repairs are frequently performed surgical procedures with significant economic ramifications for employers, insurers, providers, and patients because of the volume of procedures, complication rates, the significant rate of recurrence, and escalating costs. Because biological mesh materials add significant expense to the costs of treating complex abdominal wall hernias, the role of such costly materials needs to be better defined to ensure the most cost-efficient and effective treatments for ventral abdominal wall hernias.