Hernia at the stoma site after loop ileostomy reversal

Risk factors associated to incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to identify which risk factors are associated with the appearance of an incisional hernia in a stoma site after its closure. This in the sake of identifying which patients would benefit from a preventative intervention and thus start implementing a cost-effective protocol for prophylactic mesh placement in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane library, and ScienceDirect was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting incidence, risk factors, and follow-up time for appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure were included. A fixed-effects and random effects models were used to calculate odds ratios' estimates and standardized mean values with their respective grouped 95% confidence interval. This to evaluate the association between possible risk factors and the appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies totaling 2899 patients were included. Incidence proportion between included studies was of 16.76% (CI95% 12.82; 21.62). Out of the evaluated factors higher BMI (p = 0.0001), presence of parastomal hernia (p = 0.0023), colostomy (p = 0,001), and end stoma (p = 0.0405) were associated with the appearance of incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure, while malignant disease (p = 0.0084) and rectum anterior resection (p = 0.0011) were found to be protective factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement should be considered as an effective preventative intervention in high-risk patients (obese patients, patients with parastomal hernia, colostomy, and end stoma patients) with the goal of reducing incisional hernia rates in stoma site after closure while remaining cost-effective.

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.

Incidence, risk factors, and predictive modeling of stoma site incisional hernia after enterostomy closure: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) is a common complication, but its incidence and risk factors are not well known. The objective of this study is to explore the incidence and risk factors of SSIH and build a predictive model.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis on the patients who underwent enterostomy closure from January 2018 to August 2020. Patient's general condition, perioperative, intraoperative, and follow-up information was collected. The patients were divided into control group (no occurrence) and observation group (occurrence) according to whether SSIH occurred. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to evaluate the risk factors of SSIH, following which we constructed a nomogram for SSIH prediction.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six patients were enrolled in the study. The incidence of SSIH was 24.4% (38 cases), of which 14 were treated with hernia mesh repair, and the others were treated with conservative treatment. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 68 years (OR 1.045, 95% CI 1.002 ~ 1.089, P = 0.038), colostomy (OR 2.913, 95% CI 1.035 ~ 8.202, P = 0.043), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR 1.181, 95% CI 1.010 ~ 1.382, P = 0.037), malignant tumor (OR 4.838, 95% CI 1.508 ~ 15.517, P = 0.008) and emergency surgery (OR 5.327, 95% CI 1.996 ~ 14.434, P = 0.001) are the independent risk factors for SSIH.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, a predictive model for the occurrence of SSIH was constructed to screen high-risk groups of SSIH. For patients at high risk for SSIH, how to deal with the follow-up and prevent the occurrence of SSIH is worth further exploration.

An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest.

METHODS

Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I² 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I² 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I² 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I² 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I² 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I² 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24).

CONCLUSION

Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.

Incisional hernia following ileostomy closure: who's at risk? The Gold Coast experience

BACKGROUND

Diverting ileostomy is utilized to protect high-risk anastomoses, though it is not shown to reduce the leak rate it may reduce the severe consequences of an anastamotic leak. In recent years mesh development has advanced to allow placement of meshes into potentially contaminated fields, such as an ostomy closure site.

METHOD

A retrospective review of all ileostomy closure procedures in Gold Coast from 1st January 2011 until 31st December 2018 were included. Patient demographics and surgical outcomes and follow up reviewed to identify any cases of incisional hernia relating to ostomy closure.

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients were identified, after exclusions 171 were suitable for analysis within the study, a total of 25 incisional hernia detected radiologically or clinically. Two independent risk factors were identified BMI >30 and ASA 3-4. Both had significant association with development of incisional hernia with a 3- and 2-fold RR increase, respectively. This was also reflected in a subset analysis of BMI ranges demonstrating increased risk in the obese and severely obese group.

DISCUSSION

The high-risk group in our population was elevated BMI and ASA, these are the patients we would expect to benefit the most from targeted therapy to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia. Future studies to look at whether reducing BMI or prophylactic mesh placement are effective.

When to use a prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: a case-control study

Purpose

The closure of a stoma is frequently associated with an acceptable morbidity and mortality. One of the most frequent complications is incisional hernia at the stoma site, which occurs in 20%–40% of cases, higher than incisions in other parts of the abdomen. The objective of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with the presentation of incisional hernia after stoma closure, this in order to select patients who are candidates for prophylactic mesh placement during closure.

Methods

An unpaired case–control study was conducted. This study involved 164 patients who underwent a stoma closure between January 2014 and December 2019. Associated factors for the development of incisional hernia at the site of the stoma after closure were identified, for which it was performed a logistic regression analysis.

Results

41 cases and 123 controls were analyzed, with a mean follow-up of 35.21 ± 18.42 months, the mean age for performing the stoma closure was 65.28 ± 14.07 years, the most frequent cause for performing the stoma was malignant disease (65.85%). Risk factor for the development of incisional hernia at the stoma site after its closure was identified as a history of parastomal hernia (OR 5.90, CI95% 1.97–17.68).

Conclusions

The use of prophylactic mesh at stoma closure should be considered in patients with a history of parastomal hernia since these patients present a significantly higher risk of developing a hernia.

Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed.

Results

Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123–0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462–1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78–1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64–1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846–3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD − 0.579,95% CI − 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119–0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes.

Conclusion

Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w.