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.