Closure of stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Gastrointestinal procedures and anastomoses can be safely performed during complex abdominal wall reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

The literature regarding combined abdominal wall reconstruction and gastrointestinal surgery is limited and largely suggests staged procedures due to a reported increased incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs), hernia recurrence and anastomotic leak, but this exposes patients to the risks of two substantial procedures. This study evaluates the outcomes of single-stage GI surgery with complex abdominal wall reconstructions (CAWR) by a single surgeon.

METHODS

Analysis of 10 years of a prospectively maintained single surgeon CAWR database compared those who had CAWR-alone with those having concomitant gastrointestinal surgery (CAWR-GI) such as stoma reversal or bowel resection but excluding cholecystectomy, gynaecological surgery and adhesiolysis alone. Groups were compared using the paired t test (continuous data) and Fisher's exact test (nominal data).

RESULTS

Overall, 62 elective cases (42 CAWR-alone vs. 20 CAWR-GI) were analysed. Baseline demographics (age, BMI, co-morbidities, smoking status and hernia size) showed no differences; CAWR-GI mean operating time was significantly longer compared to the CAWR-alone group (5.4 h vs. 4.1 h) with an increased incidence of post-operative ileus in the intestinal group (40% vs. 11.9%, p < 0.05). Post-operative complications were common (chest infection (32.3%) and SSI (41.9%)), but similar between groups. There were no anastomotic leaks, and the hernia recurrence rate at almost 4 years median follow-up was 10% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Performing simultaneous intestinal surgery during complex abdominal wall repair can be performed safely without increasing the risk of hernia recurrence, mesh infections or anastomotic leak. A careful choice of mesh implant is required.

Efficacy and safety of mesh closure in preventing wound failure following emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of emergency laparotomy closure with and without prophylactic mesh.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed via literature databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Studies were examined for eligibility and included if they compared prophylactic mesh closure to the conventional laparotomy closure following emergency abdominal surgery. Both acute wound failure and incisional hernia (IH) occurence were our primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI), seroma/hematoma formation, Clavien-Dindo complications (score ≥ 3), total operative time, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four comparative studies with a total of 817 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall acute wound failure and incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the mesh group compared to non-mesh group (odd ratio (OR) 0.23, p = 0.002) and (OR 0.21, p = 0.00001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the following outcomes: total operative time (mean difference (MD) 21.44, p = 0.15), SSI (OR 1.47, p = 0.06), seroma/haematoma formation (OR 2.74, p = 0.07), grade ≥ 3 Clavien-Dindo complications (OR 2.39, p = 0.28), and LOS (MD 0.26, p = 0.84).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy is diverse and obscure. Although the data trends towards a reduction in the incidence of IH, a reliable conclusion requires further high-quality RCTs to fully assess the efficacy and safety of mesh use in an emergency setting.

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.

[Prophylaxis of parastomal, perineal and incisional hernias in colorectal surgery]

This article gives an overview of the relevant evidence from the literature on the topic of prophylactic use of meshes to prevent incisional and parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery. In addition, based on a structured literature search the incidence of hernias in colorectal surgery over the past 5 years was analyzed. A slight majority (54%) of articles recommended the use of prophylactic mesh implantation in colorectal surgery. The prophylactic use of meshes appears to reduce the risk of hernias in colorectal surgery but is associated with a slightly increased perioperative wound infection rate. Parastomal hernias are associated with higher incidence rates compared with incisional hernias and also appear to benefit more from prophylactic mesh implantation. The evidence in the literature is still unclear regarding the use of synthetic or biological implants due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. Perineal hernias were excluded from the analysis due to the incomparability of the mainly casuistic literature. An overview is given in the discussion. The analysis of the literature and also in reflection of our own experience comes to the conclusion that the disrupted integrity of the abdominal wall due to the operation should be prophylactically reinforced with a mesh after colorectal surgery. An evidence-based recommendation is not possible based on the current state of research on implantation techniques, e.g. onlay, sublay intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) and selection of the implant.

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.