Prophylaktische Netze an der Bauchdecke

PHaLIR: prevent hernia after loop ileostomy reversal-a study protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer is a common cancer worldwide. Surgery for rectal cancer with low anterior resection often includes the formation of a temporary protective loop ileostomy. The temporary ostomy is later reversed in a separate operation. One complication following stoma closure is the development of a hernia at the former stoma site, and this has been reported in 7-15% of patients. The best method to avoid hernia after stoma closure is unclear. The most common closure is by suturing only, but different forms of mesh have been tried. Biological mesh has in a randomized trial halved hernia incidence after stoma reversal. Biosynthetic mesh and retromuscular mesh are currently being evaluated in ongoing studies.

METHODS

The present multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, controlled study will compare standard suture closure of the abdominal wall in loop ileostomy reversal with retromuscular synthetic mesh at the stoma site. The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review board in Stockholm. Patients aged 18-90 years, operated on with low anterior resection and a protective loop ileostomy for rectal cancer and planned for ileostomy reversal, will be considered for inclusion in the study. Randomization will be 1:1 on the operation day with concealed envelopes. The estimated sample size is intended to evaluate the superiority of the experimental arm and to detect a reduction of hernia occurrence from 12 to 3%. The operation method is blinded to the patients and in the chart and for the observer at the 30-day follow-up. The main outcome is hernia occurrence at the stoma site within 3 years postoperatively, diagnosed through CT with strain. Secondary outcomes are operation time, length of hospital stay, pain, and 30-day complications.

DISCUSSION

This double-blinded randomized controlled superiority study will compare retromuscular synthetic mesh during the closure of loop ileostomy to standard care. If this study can show a lower frequency of hernia with the use of prophylactic mesh, it may lead to new surgical guidelines during stoma closure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720262. Registered on October 25, 2018.

Prophylactic Onlay Mesh Implantation During Definitive Fascial Closure After Open Abdomen Therapy (PROMOAT): Absorbable or Non-absorbable? Methodical Description and Results of a Feasibility Study

Introduction: Incisional hernia development after open abdomen therapy (OAT) remains a common complication in the long run. To demonstrate the feasibility, we describe our method of prophylactic onlay mesh implantation with definitive fascial closure after open abdomen therapy (PROMOAT). To display the feasibility of this concept, we evaluated the short-term outcome after absorbable and non-absorbable synthetic mesh implantation as prophylactic onlay. Material and Methods: Ten patients were prospectively enrolled, and prophylactic onlay mesh (long-term absorbable or non-absorbable) was implanted at the definitive fascial closure operation. The cohort was followed up with a special focus on incisional hernia development and complications. Results: OAT duration was 21.0 ± 12.6 days (95% CI: 16.9-25.1). Definitive fascial closure was achieved in all cases. No incisional hernias were present during a follow-up interval of 12.4 ± 10.8 months (range 1-30 months). Two seromas and one infected hematoma occurred. The outcome did not differ between mesh types. Conclusion: The prophylactic onlay mesh implantation of alloplastic, long-term absorbable, or non-absorbable meshes in OAT showed promising results and only a few complications that were of minor concern. Incisional hernias did not occur during follow-up. To validate the feasibility and safety of prophylactic onlay mesh implantation long-term data and large-scaled prospective trials are needed to give recommendations on prophylactic onlay mesh implantation after OAT.

Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias of Systematic Reviews of Prophylactic Mesh for Parastomal Hernia Prevention Using AMSTAR and ROBIS Tools

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in clinical decision making and resource allocation and are expected to be unbiased and consistent. The aim of this study is a review of systematic reviews on the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia (PH) formation using ROBIS and AMSTAR tools to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis of which the objective was to assess the use of a prophylactic mesh to prevent PH. A systematic search of the literature in five databases from inception until December 2017 was conducted. For each systematic review, methodologic quality and risk of bias were assessed using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools, respectively. We estimated the inter-rater reliability for individual domains and for the overall methodological quality and risk of bias using Fleiss' k.

RESULTS

We identified 14 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Using the AMSTAR scale with a cutoff value, six reviews showed high methodologic quality and eight were of low quality. Using the ROBIS tool, the overall risk of bias was low in 50% of the reviews analyzed. In the remaining studies, the risk of bias was unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

The global evidence in favor of the use of a prophylactic mesh for preventing PH is not uniform regarding quality and risk of bias. Surgeons cannot be equally confident in the results of all systematic reviews published on this topic.

Incidence and Factors Correlating With Incisional Hernia Following Open Bowel Resection in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review of 1000 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify the incidence and factors associated with the development of incisional hernia (IH) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing open bowel resections.

BACKGROUND

Predisposing factors for IH have not been well studied in patients with IBD undergoing open bowel resection. The role of duration of the disease, nutritional factors, anti-inflammatory treatment, previous operative procedures, wound infection, and other complicating factors remains unclear.

METHODS

One thousand patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease were followed for a mean of 8 years after open bowel resection. The incidence of IH was recorded as well as correlating factors with the development of IH.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of IH in this series was 20% (21% for ulcerative colitis and 20% for Crohn's disease). Statistically significant risk factors for development of IH were wound infection (HR 3.66, P <0.001), hypoalbuminemia (HR 2.02, P = 0.002), history of previous bowel resection (HR 1.60, P = 0.003), creation of ileostomy at the time of procedure (HR 1.53, P = 0.01), history of smoking (HR 1.52, P = 0.013), body mass index at surgery (1.036, P = 0.009), age at surgery (HR 1.021, P <0.001), and age at the onset of disease (HR 1.018, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBD have a high incidence of incisional hernia after open bowel resection. Wound infection had the strongest correlation with the development of IH. The other factors were age at onset of IBD, age at surgery, body mass index, serum albumin, presence of ileostomy, previous surgical procedures, and history of smoking. Duration of disease, preoperative steroids, immunosuppressive therapy, and blood transfusion were not found to correlate with IH.

The incidence of incisional hernia after aortic aneurysm is not higher than after benign colorectal interventions: A retrospective control-matched cohort study

Background

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) have most probably an inflammatory origin, whereby the elastica is the layer actually involved. In the past, collagen weackness was supposed to be the shared cause of both, AAA and incisional hernias. Since the development of new techniques of closure of the abdominal wall over the last decade, collagen deficency seems to play only a secondary etiologic role.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to investigate whether the incidence of incisional hernia following laparotomy due to AAA differs from that of colorectal interventions.

Material and methods

This was a retrospective control matched cohort study. After screening of 403 patients with colorectal interventions and 96 patients with AAA, 27 and 72 patients, respectively were included. The match criteria for inclusion of patients with colorectal interventions were: age, benign underlying disease and median xiphopubic laparotomy. The primary endpoint was the incidence of an incisional hernia. The secondary endpoints were the risk profile, length of stay in the intensive care unit and postoperative complications. Data analysis was carried in the consecutive collective from 2006 to 2008.

Results

In the group with AAA the mean follow-up was 34.5±18.1 months and in the group with colorectal interventions 35.7±21.4 months. The incidence of incisional hernias showed no significant differences between the two groups. In the AAA group 10 patients (13.8%) developed an incisional hernia in contrast to 7 patients in the colorectal intervention group (25.9%).

Conclusions

In our collective patients with AAA did not show an increased incidence of incisional hernia in comparison to patients with colorectal interventions with comparable size of the laparotomy access and age. The quality of closure of the abdominal wall seems to be an important factor for the prevention of incisional hernia.

The Treatment of Incisional Hernia

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of studies from multiple countries has shown that the incidence of incisional hernia varies from 4% to 10% depending on the type of operation. No epidemiological surveys have been conducted so far. The worst possible complication of an incisional hernia if it is not treated surgically is incarceration. In this article, we present the main surgical methods of treating this condition. We also evaluate the available randomized and controlled trials (RCTs) in which open and laparoscopic techniques were compared and analyze the patients' quality of life.

METHODS

We selectively searched PubMed for relevant literature using the search terms "incisional hernia" and "randomized controlled trial." 9 RCTs were included in the analysis. The endpoints of the meta-analysis were the number of reoperations, complications, and recurrences. The observed events were studied statistically by correlation of two unpaired groups with a fixed-effects model and with a random-effects model. We analyzed the quality of life in our.

RESULTS

Open surgery and laparoscopic surgery for the repair of incisional hernias have similar rates of reoperation (odds ratio [OR] 0.419 favoring laparoscopy, 95% confidence interval [0.159; 1.100]; p = 0.077). The rates of surgical complications are also similar (OR 0.706; 95% CI [0.278; 1.783]; p = 0.461), although the data are highly heterogeneous, and the recurrence rates are comparable as well (OR 1.301; 95% CI [0,761; 2,225]; p = 0.336). In our own patient cohort in Würzburg, the quality of life was better in multiple categories one year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The operative treatment of incisional hernia markedly improves patients' quality of life. The currently available evidence regarding the complication rates of open and laparoscopic surgical repair is highly heterogeneous, and further RCTs on this subject would therefore be desirable. Moreover, new study models are needed so that well-founded individualized treatment algorithms can be developed.