Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernia using a bilayer mesh with a slit

Patients' experiences of living with a stoma in rural areas in Northern Sweden

Introduction: Stoma complications are common and interfere with many aspects of everyday life. Stoma problems are usually managed by a specialised stoma nurse, a service not present in the rural areas of South Lapland in Sweden. The aim of this study was to describe how stoma patients in rural areas experience living with a stoma.Methods: A qualitative descriptive study with semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 stoma patients living in rural municipalities and who received a part of their care at the local cottage hospital. Qualitative content analysis was employed.Results: Initially, the stoma was experienced as very depressing. Participants had difficulties in properly managing the dressing. Over time they learned how to properly care for their stoma, making their life easier. Both satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the healthcare were experienced. Those who were dissatisfied expressed a lack of competence in dealing with stoma-related problems.Conclusions: Living with a stoma in a rural area in northern Sweden is experienced as a learning process and acceptance of the stoma's existence is important. This study emphasises the need for increased knowledge of stoma-related problems in rural primary healthcare in order to help patients cope with everyday life.

Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: keyhole, Sugarbaker, sandwich, or hybrid technique with 3D mesh? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia is the most common complication after stoma formation with an incidence that approaches 50% at 2 years postoperatively. In the last decade, different approaches of minimally invasive procedures have been proposed for the treatment of parastomal hernia. Nevertheless, the superiority of one technique over the others remains still unclear. Our objective was to update and systematically analyze current state of research concerning the postoperative outcomes of the four most prevalent minimally invasive techniques.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of three databases (Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar) was undertaken for articles published from January 2015 to November 2022. Fifteen studies from a previous meta-analysis on the topic were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies incorporating 1289 total patients were deemed eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. The keyhole technique was associated with the highest incidence of postoperative complications and recurrences (31.3% and 24.1%, respectively), followed by the Sugarbaker technique (27.6% and 9%, respectively). Operative time was among the lowest in patients operated with the 3D mesh technique, while patients undergoing the keyhole technique experienced the shortest cumulative length of hospital stay (6 days).

CONCLUSION

Each technique demonstrates a unique profile of effectiveness offset by the propensity towards developing postoperative complications. While no conclusive evidence on the optimal technique exist to date, newer minimally invasive techniques show promising results, albeit based on limited data. The future of parastomal hernia repair seems to rely on a highly individualized approach, tailored to the distinctive characteristics of both the hernia and the patient.

Sugarbaker Versus Keyhole Repair for Parastomal Hernia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

INTRODUCTION

Parastomal hernia is a debilitating complication of stoma creation. Parastomal hernia repair with mesh reduces recurrence rates in open and laparoscopic settings. Recent comparative studies conflict with previously pooled data on optimal mesh repair technique. The objective of this study is to examine parastomal hernia recurrence rates after Sugarbaker and keyhole repairs by performing an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane database, SCOPUS, and the PROSPERO registry was performed according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021290483). Studies comparing parastomal hernia recurrences after Sugarbaker and keyhole repairs were included. Studies with overlapping patient cohorts (duplicate data), non-comparative studies, studies that did not report the primary outcome of interest, and studies not in the English language were excluded. Study bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Pooled mean differences (MD), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Forest plots and funnel plots were generated. Study quality was analyzed using MINORS. Additional subgroup analysis of modern studies was performed.

RESULTS

Ten comparative studies published between 2005 and 2021 from 5 countries were included for analysis comprising 347 Sugarbaker repairs and 246 keyhole repairs. There were no differences in patient age, sex, or BMI between the groups. There was no difference between the groups regarding surgical site infection (OR 0.78; CI 0.31-1.98; P = 0.61) or post-operative bowel obstruction (OR 0.76; CI 0.23-2.56; P = 0.66). Sugarbaker repairs were significantly less often associated with parastomal hernia recurrence when compared to keyhole repairs (OR 0.38; CI 0.18-0.78; P = 0.008). There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies comparing parastomal hernia recurrence (I² = 32%; P = 0.15). Quality analysis revealed a median MINORS score of 11 (range 6-16). Subgroup analysis of studies performed after the previously published pooled analysis (2015-2021) revealed no significant difference in parastomal hernia recurrence between the two groups (OR 0.58; CI 0.24-1.38; P = 0.22) with a significant subgroup effect (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Though there were lower rates of parastomal hernia recurrence with Sugarbaker repairs on overall analysis, this phenomenon disappeared on subgroup analysis of modern studies. Randomized controlled trials with contemporary cohorts would help further evaluate these repairs and minimize potential bias.

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.

Parastomal hernia repair with onlay mesh remains a safe and effective approach

Background

Parastomal hernia (PSH) management poses difficulties due to significant rates of recurrence and morbidity after repair. This study aims to describe a practical approach for PSH, particularly with onlay mesh repair using a lateral peristomal incision.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent PSH repair between 2001 and 2018.

Results

Seventy-six consecutive PSH with a mean follow-up of 93.1 months were reviewed. Repair was carried out for end colostomy (40%), end ileostomy (25%), ileal conduit (21%), loop colostomy (6.5%) end-loop colostomy (5%) and loop ileostomy (2.5%). The repair was performed either with a lateral peristomal incision (59%) or a midline incision (41%). Polypropylene mesh (86%), biologic mesh (8%) and composite mesh (6%) were used. Stoma relocation was done in 9 patients (12%). Eight patients (11%) developed postoperative wound complications. Recurrence occurred in 16 patients (21%) with a mean time to recurrence at 29.4 months. No significant difference in wound complication and recurrence was observed based on the type of stoma, incision used, type of mesh used, and whether or not the stoma was repaired on the same site or relocated.

Conclusion

Onlay mesh repair of PSH remains a practical and safe approach and could be an advantageous technique for high-risk patients. It can be performed using a lateral peristomal incision with low morbidity and an acceptable recurrence rate. However, for patients with significant adhesions and very large PSH, a midline approach with stoma relocation may also be considered.

Quality of life after end colostomy without mesh and with prophylactic synthetic mesh in sublay position: one-year results of the STOMAMESH trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether prophylactic mesh in a sublay position has an impact on the quality-of-life (QoL) of patients receiving an end colostomy.

METHODS

One-year follow-up of patients from the STOMAMESH trial, a randomized controlled double-blinded multicenter study. Patients were randomized to either prophylactic synthetic mesh with a cruciform incision in the center, placed in sublay position, or no prophylactic mesh. Patients attended a 1-year visit and responded to the questionnaires EORTC QLQ C-30 and CR-38. The impact of having a mesh on QoL was determined by comparing a group of patients receiving a mesh with a group without. A subgroup analysis was made depending on whether a PSH was clinically present or not.

RESULTS

Of the 232 randomized patients, 211 patients reached the 1-year clinical follow-up. The response rate of these 211 patients was 70%. No differences were seen in global QoL between the groups. Mesh patients reported significantly less stoma-related problems (p = 0.014) but more sexual problems in males (p = 0.022). When excluding patients with a clinical diagnosis of PSH, the difference in stoma-related problems remained while no significant difference was seen regarding sexual problems in males.

CONCLUSIONS

When forming an end colostomy, prophylactic synthetic mesh in a sublay position did not affect global QoL at 1-year follow-up, but stoma-related problems were fewer even in the presence of a clinically diagnosed PSH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00917995.

Parastomal Hernia Repair; Seldom Performed and Seldom Reported: Results From a Nationwide Survey

Background:

Parastomal hernia is common, but there are few population-based studies showing the frequency and outcome of parastomal hernia repair in routine surgical practice. The aim of this study was to identify patients undergoing surgery for parastomal hernia in Sweden and to define risk factors for complication and recurrence.

Methods:

A broad search of the Swedish National Patient Register 1998–2007 for all possible parastomal hernia repairs using surgical procedure codes. Records of all patients identified were reviewed and those with a definite parastomal hernia procedure were included and analyzed.

Results:

A total of 71 patients were identified after review of the records. The most common reason for surgery was cosmetic and the most frequent method was relocation of the stoma. Parastomal hernia recurrence rate was 18% during follow-up of a minimum 2 years. Overall, a surgical complication occurred in 32%. Possible risk factors were analyzed including emergency surgery versus planned, gender, age, indication for surgery, and method of surgery; none of which was significant.

Conclusion:

The frequency of parastomal hernia procedures was much lower than suggested by previous studies. The number of procedures per surgeon was even lower than expected. No specific risk factor could be identified. Parastomal hernia auditing in the form of a nationwide quality register should be mandatory. Centralization should be considered.

Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation

BACKGROUND

Parastomal herniation is a common problem following formation of a stoma after both elective and emergency abdominal surgery. Symptomatic hernias give rise to a significant amount of patient morbidity, and in some cases mortality, and therefore may necessitate surgical treatment to repair the hernial defect and/or re-site the stoma. In an effort to reduce this complication, recent research has focused on the application of a synthetic or biological mesh, inserted during stoma formation to help strengthen the abdominal wall.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate whether mesh reinforcement during stoma formation reduces the incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary objectives included the safety or potential harms or both of mesh placement in terms of stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, patient-reported symptoms/postoperative quality of life, and re-hospitalisation/ambulatory visits.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1970 to 11 January 2018), Ovid Embase (1974 to 11 January 2018), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to 11 January 2018). To identify ongoing studies, we also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 11 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of prosthetic mesh (including biological/composite mesh) placement versus a control group (no mesh) for the prevention of parastomal hernia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the literature search for potential eligibility. We obtained the full articles for all studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria and included all those that met the criteria. Any differences in opinion between review authors were resolved by consensus. We pooled study data into a meta-analysis. We assessed heterogeneity by calculation of I² and expressed results for each variable as a risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We expressed continous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 844 participants. The primary outcome was overall incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary outcomes were rate of reoperation at 12 months, operative time, postoperative length of hospital stay, stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate. We judged the risk of bias across all domains to be low in six trials. We judged four trials to have an overall high risk of bias.The overall incidence of parastomal hernia was less in participants receiving a prophylactic mesh compared to those who had a standard ostomy formation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.66; 10 studies, 771 participants; I² = 69%; low-quality evidence). In absolute numbers, the incidence of parastomal hernia was 22 per 100 participants (18 to 27) receiving prophylactic mesh compared to 41 per 100 participants having a standard ostomy formation.There were no differences in the need for reoperation (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.64; 9 studies, 757 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence); operative time (MD -6.50 (min), 95% CI -18.24 to 5.24; 6 studies, 671 participants; low-quality evidence); postoperative length of hospital stay (MD -0.95 (days), 95% CI -2.03 to 0.70; 4 studies, 500 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or stoma-related infections (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.50; 6 studies, 472 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) between the two groups.We were unable to analyse mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate due to sparse data or because the outcome was not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane Review included 10 RCTs with a total of 844 participants. The review demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia in people who had a prophylactic synthetic mesh placed at the time of the index operation compared to a standard ostomy formation. However, our confidence in this estimate is low due to the presence of a large degree of clinical heterogeneity, as well as high variability in follow-up duration and technique of parastomal herniation detection. We found the rate of stoma-related infection to be similar in both the intervention and control groups.

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.

Preventing parastomal hernias with systematic intraperitoneal specifically designed mesh

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia is a very common complication after stoma formation. Current surgical techniques for repairing parastomal hernia have unsatisfactory results. We aim to assess our preliminary experience with prophylactic mesh placement at the time of stoma formation.

METHODS

Data were prospectively recorded. A specifically designed mesh made of polyvinyl fluoride with central conduit (Dynamesh IPST®) was fixed using an intra-peritoneal onlay technique. Safety was evaluated by means of surgical data and frequency of mesh-related complications, efficacy by the rate of parastomal hernias.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included in the study. Three of them died before a year of follow up (not related to the stoma), so they were excluded. The other 31 patients (11 women and 20 men) were prospectively followed up after different pathologies resulting in a permanent colostomy. Twelve months after surgery CT-Scan imaging revealed two (6.4%) parastomal hernias, one of them already clinically suspected. During the follow up, 29% of the patients (n = 9) developed another type of hernia (incisional, inguinal or both). In five patients (16.1%) a light stomal retraction of the otherwise slightly prominent ostomy was observed. Median clinical follow-up was 17.5 months (range 12-34).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic parastomal mesh placement might be a safe and effective procedure with a potential to reduce the risk of parastomal hernia. Routine use of this technique should be further analysed.

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.

Symptom load and individual symptoms before and after repair of parastomal hernia: a prospective single centre study

AIM

The symptom load and individual symptoms before and after repair of parastomal hernia were investigated.

METHOD

Stoma-related symptoms were prospectively recorded before repair of a parastomal hernia and at 10 days and 6 months postoperatively: leakage, skin problems, difficulty with the appliance, limitation of activity, difficulty with clothing, cosmetic complaints, social restriction, erratic action of the stoma, a bearing-down sensation at the site of the stoma and pain. Episodes of intermittent bowel obstruction and difficulty with irrigation were also recorded. Patients were seen at 1, 2 and 3 years and were examined for recurrent parastomal herniation.

RESULTS

Of 131 consecutive patients referred to a specialized centre for treatment of parastomal bulging, 61 underwent parastomal hernia repair. Forty-eight patients were treated with the Sugarbaker technique. Six different symptoms were present in more than half the patients before surgery. The overall symptom load decreased significantly from a median of 4 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.5-6] preoperatively to 2 (IQR 1-3) on postoperative day 10 and 1 (IQR 0-2) at 6 months, P < 0.001. The number of symptoms decreased in 93% of patients; in 5% there was no change and in 2% symptoms increased. Skin problems and leakage were the only symptoms that were not significantly reduced. The overall recurrence rate of herniation was 5/48 (10%) at a median of 12 (IQR 6-24) months.

CONCLUSION

The preoperative symptom load was high and this fell after repair in over 90% of patients. Recurrence occurred in 10% of patients within 2 years of repair. The study emphasizes the importance of detailed knowledge of the symptoms of parastomal hernia when addressing and managing patients' problems and complaints.

Modified laparoscopic Sugarbaker repair decreases recurrence rates of parastomal hernia

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia (PH) is a frequent complication of stoma formation, and recurrence after repair is common. A laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker technique (SB) may decrease the recurrence of PH compared with other methods.

METHODS

A retrospective review, approved by the institutional review board, of patients who underwent PH repair between 2004 and 2014 was performed. Demographics, factors for ostomy formation, hernia risk factors, intraoperative and postoperative information, and recurrence data were compared among SB and other techniques. Time to recurrence was compared between SB versus other techniques with the Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression modeling.

RESULTS

Sixty-two PH repairs were performed: 39 (61%) paraileostomy and 23 (39%) paracolostomy. Repairs included 25 laparoscopic modified SB and 37 from other techniques. There was no difference in demographics. Postoperative complication rate was lesser in SB versus all other groups (40% vs 76%, P = .02). Recurrence rates were lesser for SB versus all others (16% vs 60%, P < .001). Follow-up was similar among all groups. After adjustment, SB was found to be protective of recurrences (hazard ratio = .28, 95% confidence interval = 0.09-0.82).

CONCLUSION

A laparoscopic modified SB technique provides decreased rates of recurrence and postoperative complications compared with other approaches.

Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the laparoscopic approaches for parastomal hernia repair reported in the literature.

METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed and MEDLINE databases was conducted using various combination of the following keywords: stoma repair, laparoscopic, parastomal, and hernia. Case reports, studies with less than 5 patients, and articles not written in English were excluded. Eligible studies were further scrutinized with the 2011 levels of evidence from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Two authors reviewed and analyzed each study. If there was any discrepancy between scores, the study in question was referred to another author. A meta -analysis was performed using both random and fixed-effect models. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s regression test. The primary outcome analyzed was recurrence of parastomal hernia. Secondary outcomes were mesh infection, surgical site infection, obstruction requiring reoperation, death, and other complications. Studies were grouped by operative technique where indicated. Except for recurrence, most postoperative morbidities were reported for the overall cohort and not by approach so they were analyzed across approach.

RESULTS: Fifteen articles with a total of 469 patients were deemed eligible for review. Most postoperative morbidities were reported for the overall cohort, and not by approach. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 1.8% (95%CI: 0.8-3.2), and there was no difference between techniques. The most common postoperative complication was surgical site infection, which was seen in 3.8% (95%CI: 2.3-5.7). Infected mesh was observed in 1.7% (95%CI: 0.7-3.1), and obstruction requiring reoperation also occurred in 1.7% (95%CI: 0.7-3.0). Other complications such as ileus, pneumonia, or urinary tract infection were noted in 16.6% (95%CI: 11.9-22.1). Eighty-one recurrences were reported overall for a recurrence rate of 17.4% (95%CI: 9.5-26.9). The recurrence rate was 10.2% (95%CI: 3.9-19.0) for the modified laparoscopic Sugarbaker approach, whereas the recurrence rate was 27.9% (95%CI: 12.3-46.9) for the keyhole approach. There were no intraoperative mortalities reported and six mortalities during the postoperative course.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh repair is safe and effective for treating parastomal hernia. A modified Sugarbaker approach appears to provide the best outcomes.

Laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: updated Consensus Development Conference based guidelines [corrected]

BACKGROUND

The Executive board of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted an update of the first evidence-based Italian Consensus Conference Guidelines 2010 because a large amount of literature has been published in the last 4 years about the topics examined and new relevant issues.

METHODS

The scientific committee selected the topics to be addressed: indications to surgical treatment including special conditions (obesity, cirrhosis, diastasis recti abdominis, acute presentation); safety and outcome of intraperitoneal meshes (synthetic and biologic); fixing devices (absorbable/non-absorbable); abdominal border and parastomal hernia; intraoperative and perioperative complications; and recurrent ventral/incisional hernia. All the recommendations are the result of a careful and complete literature review examined with autonomous judgment by the entire panel. The process was supervised by experts in methodology and epidemiology from the most qualified Italian institution. Two external reviewers were designed by the EAES and EHS to guarantee the most objective, transparent, and reliable work. The Oxford hierarchy (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. "The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used by the panel to grade clinical outcomes according to levels of evidence. The recommendations were based on the grading system suggested by the GRADE working group.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The availability of recent level 1 evidence (a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs) allowed to recommend that not only laparoscopic repair is an acceptable alternative to the open repair, but also it is advantageous in terms of shorter hospital stay and wound infection rate. This conclusion appears to be extremely relevant in a clinical setting. Indications about specific conditions could also be issued: laparoscopy is recommended for the treatment of recurrent ventral hernias and obese patients, while it is a potential option for compensated cirrhotic and childbearing-age female patients. Many relevant and controversial topics were thoroughly examined by this consensus conference for the first time. Among them are the issue of safety of the intraperitoneal mesh placement, traditionally considered a major drawback of the laparoscopic technique, the role for the biologic meshes, and various aspects of the laparoscopic approach for particular locations of the defect such as the abdominal border or parastomal hernias.

New minimally invasive technique of parastomal hernia repair - methods and review

INTRODUCTION

Parastomal hernia is described as the most common complication in patients with ostomy. It is reported that its incidence varies from 3% to 39% for colostomies and 0 to 6% for ileostomies. Surgical repair remains the treatment of choice. There are three types of surgical treatment - fascial repair, stoma relocation and repair using prosthetic mesh via a laparoscopic or open approach. Recently there have been several meta-analyses and systematic reviews aiming to compare the results of surgical treatment, and the authors agreed that the quality of evidence precludes firm conclusions.

AIM

To describe the novel concept of parastomal hernia repair - HyPER/SPHR technique (hybrid parastomal endoscopic re-do/Szczepkowski parastomal hernia repair) and its early results in 12 consecutive cases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve consecutive patients were operated on due to parastomal hernia using the new HyPER hybrid technique between June 2013 and May 2014. The patients' condition was evaluated during the perioperative period, 6 weeks and then every 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

After 6 weeks of follow-up we have not observed any mesh-related complications. All 12 patients were examined 3 months and 6 months after repair surgery for evaluation. No recurrence, stoma site infection or stoma-related problems were found. None of the patients complained of pain and none of them needed to be hospitalized again. Reported quality of life on a 0-10 scale after 6 weeks of follow-up was 8 (range: 7-10).

CONCLUSIONS

The HyPER procedure for treatment of parastomal hernias proposed by the authors is a safe and feasible surgical technique with a high patient satisfaction rate and a low number of complications. The hybrid procedure seems to be a promising method for parastomal hernia repair.

Repair of complex parastomal hernias

Development of parastomal hernias (PH) is very common after stoma formation and carries a risk of subsequent bowel incarceration, obstruction and strangulation. The management of PH remains a challenge for the colorectal surgeon, and there are currently no standardized guidelines for the treatment of PH. Even more difficult is the management of complex parastomal hernias (CPH). We conducted a review of the literature to identify recent developments in the treatment of CPH, including analysis of the use of synthetic and biologic mesh prostheses, method of mesh placement and surgical approach.

Parastomal hernia: a growing problem with new solutions

Parastomal hernia is one of the most common complications following stoma creation and its prevalence is only expected to increase. It often leads to a decrease in the quality of life for patients due to discomfort, pain, frequent ostomy appliance leakage, or peristomal skin irritation and can result in significantly increased healthcare costs. Surgical technique for parastomal hernia repair has evolved significantly over the past two decades with the introduction of new types of mesh and laparoscopic procedures. The use of prophylactic mesh in high-risk patients at the time of stoma creation has gained attention in lieu of several promising studies that have emerged in the recent days. This review will attempt to demonstrate the burden that parastomal hernias present to patients, surgeons, and the healthcare system and also provide an overview of the current management and surgical techniques at both preventing and treating parastomal hernias.

Parastomal hernia repair and reinforcement: the role of biologic and synthetic materials

Parastomal hernia is a prevalent problem and treatment can pose difficulties due to significant rates of recurrence and morbidities of the repair. The current standard of care is to perform parastomal hernia repair with mesh whenever possible. There exist multiple options for mesh reinforcement (biologic and synthetic) as well as surgical techniques, to include type of repair (keyhole and Sugarbaker) and position of mesh placement (onlay, sublay, or intraperitoneal). The sublay and intraperitoneal positions have been shown to be superior with a lower incidence of recurrence. This procedure may be performed open or laparoscopically, both having similar recurrence and morbidity results. Prophylactic mesh placement at the time of stoma formation has been shown to significantly decrease the rates of parastomal hernia formation.

Risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrence after parastomal hernia repair: a nationwide study

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcome results after repair for parastomal hernia are sparsely reported and based on small-scale studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze surgical risk factors for 30-day reoperation and mortality, and, secondarily, to report the risk of reoperation for recurrence.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of nationwide perioperative surgical variables. The primary outcome was reoperation for surgical complications and/or mortality within 30 days after parastomal hernia repair. Follow-up was obtained from the Danish National Patient Register. Detailed patient-related data were based on hospital files. Multivariate analysis was based on a compound parameter: 30-day reoperation or death.

SETTING AND PATIENTS

All patients with a parastomal hernia repair registered in the Danish Hernia Database from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Univariate and logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for 30-day reoperation or death.

RESULTS

The study included 174 patients with a parastomal hernia repair (142 elective and 32 emergency repairs; 56 open and 118 laparoscopic repairs). Median follow-up was 20 months (range, 0-47). A total of 13.2% were reoperated because of postoperative complications, and 6.3% of patients died within the first 30 postoperative days. Emergency repair was the strongest risk factor for reoperation or death in multivariate analyses (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.7-21.5). No difference was found in preoperative risk of poor outcome between elective and emergency repairs (Charlson score 4 (range, 0-12) vs 5 (0-11), p = 0.07). After 3 years, the cumulated reoperation rate for recurrence was 10.8% (open 17.2% and laparoscopic 3.8%).

LIMITATIONS

Patients' comorbidity was based on retrospective data, and the study had a relatively short follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In the present nationwide study, repair for a parastomal hernia was associated with high rates of morbidity, mortality, and repair for recurrence. Emergency repair was the only important risk factor to predict poor 30-day postoperative outcome.

Parastomal hernia repair

Occurrence of parastomal hernia is considered a near inevitable consequence of stoma formation, making their management a common clinical dilemma. This article reviews the outcomes of different surgical approaches for hernia repair and describes in detail the laparoscopic Sugarbaker technique, which has been shown to have lower recurrence rates than other methods. Also reviewed is the current literature on the impact of prophylactic mesh placement during ostomy formation.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of parastomal hernias: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a frequent complication following the creation of a stoma. While a significant number of cases require operative management, data comparing short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair of parastomal hernias are limited.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP was retrospectively reviewed from 2005 to 2011 for all PSH cases that underwent open or laparoscopic repair. Patients characteristics, operative details, and outcomes were listed for both procedure types. Selected end points were compared on multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 2,167 identified parastomal hernia cases, only 222 (10.24 %) were treated laparoscopically. The open and laparoscopic groups were similar with respect to mean patient age (63 vs. 63 years; p = 1) and gender distribution as the majority of patients were females (56.8 %). However, open repair was more likely to be performed in patients with a higher ASA class (III and IV) (p < 0.001). Also, the open approach was more likely to be used emergently (8.64 vs. 3.60 %; p = 0.01) and for recurrent hernias (6.99 vs. 3.15 %; p < 0.05). After adjusting for all potential confounders including age, gender, ASA, emergency designation of the operation, hernia type, and wound class, laparoscopy was associated with shorter operative time (137.5 vs. 153.4 min; p < 0.05), shorter length of hospital stay by 3.32 days (p < 0.001), lower risk of overall morbidity (OR = 0.42; p < 0.001), and a lower risk of surgical site infections (OR = 0.35; p < 0.01) compared to open repair. Mortality rates were similar in the laparoscopic and open groups (0.45 vs. 1.59 %, respectively; p = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair is safe and appears to be associated with better short-term outcomes compared to open repair in selected cases. Large prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm those results and to assess long-term recurrence rates.

The persistent challenge of parastomal herniation: a review of the literature and future developments

AIM

The aim of this review article was to outline current evidence relating to the treatment and prevention of parastomal herniation with a view to guide surgeons dealing with patients potentially affected by this complication.

METHOD

Medline and PubMed databases were searched using the keywords 'parastomal hernia/herniation', 'stoma hernia/herniation' and 'stoma complications'. Evidence was obtained from randomized and non-randomized studies. Case reports and articles not written in English were excluded. Qualitative assessment of all included studies was performed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 levels of evidence.

RESULTS

The search revealed a total of 228 publications of which 115 fulfilled the selection criteria. Stoma formation through the rectus muscle is complicated by parastomal herniation in up to 50% of cases. There is no conclusive evidence that alternative techniques (e.g. extraperitoneal, lateral rectus abdominis positioned stoma) are superior. Open and laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair have similar recurrence rates up to 50%. The 'Sugarbaker' technique appears to be superior to the 'keyhole' technique when a laparoscopic approach is used. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the stoma trephine appears to reduce the herniation rate to approximately 15% and is accompanied by a decrease in symptomatic hernias requiring repair without any difference in stoma-related morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Large prospective controlled trials are required to compare surgical techniques of stoma formation in reducing the incidence of parastomal herniation. Despite limited evidence, routine prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the stoma trephine should be offered to all patients undergoing permanent stoma formation.

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy in elective abdominoperineal resection for cancer: a single surgeon experience

AIM

Parastomal herniation of end colostomies can be chronically debilitating for patients and a difficult problem to treat. To prevent parastomal hernia (PSH) formation an extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) approach has been developed in open colorectal surgery and some studies have suggested a potential advantage to this approach. Here we describe our technique of laparoscopic extraperitoneal stoma formation and present our experience to date.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection between March 1999 and March 2011. We performed the EPC technique as follows: under laparoscopic guidance, a smooth tip instrument was used to gently separate the peritoneum from the posterior aponeurotic plane to create an extraperitoneal tunnel running from the skin incision to the left flank of the abdominal cavity to join the previously dissected paracolic gutter. The colon was exteriorized and the position was checked to ensure the absence of torsion or kinking.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients underwent a standard laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with total mesorectal excision. Colostomy was constructed extraperitoneally (EPC) or transperitoneally (TPC) in 12 and 10 patients respectively. There were five complications requiring operative intervention: two stomal necrosis and one surgical site infection in the TPC group and two small bowel occlusions in the EPC group. Four patients from the TPC group developed PSH at 24, 36, 48 and 72 months respectively while there were no cases of PSH in the EPC group.

CONCLUSION

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic colostomy showed a potential reduction of PSH in our series of patients.

Surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias are a frequent complication of enterostomies that require surgical treatment in approximately half of patients. This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of the surgical techniques available for parastomal hernia repair.

METHODS

Systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA. Assessment of methodological quality and selection of studies of parastomal hernia repair was done with a modified MINORS. Subgroups were formed for each surgical technique. Primary outcome was recurrence after at least 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were mortality and postoperative morbidity. Outcomes were analyzed using weighted pooled proportions and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included with the majority retrospective. Suture repair resulted in a significantly increased recurrence rate when compared with mesh repair (odds ratio [OR] 8.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.2-15.1; P < 0.0001). Recurrence rates for mesh repair ranged from 6.9% to 17% and did not differ significantly. In the laparoscopic repair group, the Sugarbaker technique had less recurrences than the keyhole technique (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.6; P = 0.016). Morbidity did not differ between techniques. The overall rate of mesh infections was low (3%, 95% CI 2) and comparable for each type of mesh repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Suture repair of parastomal hernia should be abandoned because of increased recurrence rates. The use of mesh in parastomal hernia repair significantly reduces recurrence rates and is safe with a low overall rate of mesh infection. In laparoscopic repair, the Sugarbaker technique is superior over the keyhole technique showing fewer recurrences.

Parastomal hernia. A study of the French federation of ostomy patients

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of parastomal hernia (PSH) varies considerably in the literature. This condition impacts negatively on quality of life. Yet there is no surgical consensus concerning treatment. The aim of the study was to determine treatment and recurrence rates of PSH in a large population of ostomy patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was carried out by a self-administered questionnaire in a population drawn at random from the database of the French federation of ostomy patients (FSF).

RESULTS

Seven hundred and eighty-two patients were eligible for the study. The mean duration of follow-up was 10.5 years. PSH was reported by 202 patients (25.6%) and appeared on average 18 months after creation of the stoma. In multivariate analysis, ileostomy had a lower risk of developing PSH than did colostomy; age mote than 60 years and peristomal complications at the time of stoma creation increased the risk. Only 24% of patients with PSH were free from symptoms related to the hernia. The main complaints were pain (35%), difficulties in fitting a stomal appliance with leakage (28%); 114 patients (56%) underwent operative repair. The morbidity rate of reoperation was 33%, and 57 patients (52%) had recurrence of PSH within an average of 6 months. Transposition of the stoma to another location and the use of prosthetic mesh decreased recidivism AF recurrence?

CONCLUSION

PSH aggravates the inherently diminished quality of life of stoma patients. There are many proposed surgical treatments but recurrence occurs in more than half of patients. Randomized trials on the treatment of PSH are nonexistent. The use of a prosthetic mesh may reduce the risk of recurrence. The prophylactic use of prophylactic mesh at the time of initial stoma formation is a strategy worthy of consideration.

Laparoscopic slit mesh repair of parastomal hernia using a designated mesh: long-term results

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia (PH) is a frequent complication of colorectal surgery, which incidence reaches 55% of all stoma formation. Currently, there is no definitive strategy for its repair. This study was designed to assess the outcome in patients who underwent laparoscopic PH repair using a slit mesh/keyhole technique.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective case review of all patients who underwent laparoscopic PH repair with a designed slit mesh/keyhole between 2005 and 2010. Three ports were placed opposite the stoma site, and careful adhesiolysis and hernia content reduction were performed. The parastomal fascial defect was measured and covered with a designated mesh. Fixation of the mesh was achieved with concentric tacks and transcutaneous Prolene suture. Recurrence was diagnosed after examination of patients by two surgeons or by imaging demonstrating an indolent hernia.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine laparoscopic PH mesh repairs were performed with an average age of 63.5 (range 42-81, median 64) years to treat paracolostomy hernia in 18 of 29 cases (62.1%), para-ileostomy hernia in 10 of 29 cases (34.5%), and for an ileal conduit site hernia in 1 of 29 cases (3.4%). The average operative time was 179 (range, 80-300; median, 180) min. Two operations (6.9%) were converted to an open approach. Early postoperative complications were documented in four patients (13.8%), including one elderly patient with severe comorbidities who died from postoperative sepsis (mortality rate, 3.4%). Only one late complication was recorded (3.4%). The average hospital stay was 4.7 (range, 1-19; median, 3) days. Average follow-up time was 28 (range, 12-53; median, 30) months. Recurrence of the hernia was found in 13 of 28 patients (46.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic slit mesh/keyhole repair is feasible, although it is a complex surgery reflected by extended operative time. The high recurrence rate suggests that technical improvement of the method is essential.

Laparoscopic slit mesh repair of parastomal hernia using a designated mesh: long-term results

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia (PH) is a frequent complication of colorectal surgery, which incidence reaches 55% of all stoma formation. Currently, there is no definitive strategy for its repair. This study was designed to assess the outcome in patients who underwent laparoscopic PH repair using a slit mesh/keyhole technique.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective case review of all patients who underwent laparoscopic PH repair with a designed slit mesh/keyhole between 2005 and 2010. Three ports were placed opposite the stoma site, and careful adhesiolysis and hernia content reduction were performed. The parastomal fascial defect was measured and covered with a designated mesh. Fixation of the mesh was achieved with concentric tacks and transcutaneous Prolene suture. Recurrence was diagnosed after examination of patients by two surgeons or by imaging demonstrating an indolent hernia.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine laparoscopic PH mesh repairs were performed with an average age of 63.5 (range 42-81, median 64) years to treat paracolostomy hernia in 18 of 29 cases (62.1%), para-ileostomy hernia in 10 of 29 cases (34.5%), and for an ileal conduit site hernia in 1 of 29 cases (3.4%). The average operative time was 179 (range, 80-300; median, 180) min. Two operations (6.9%) were converted to an open approach. Early postoperative complications were documented in four patients (13.8%), including one elderly patient with severe comorbidities who died from postoperative sepsis (mortality rate, 3.4%). Only one late complication was recorded (3.4%). The average hospital stay was 4.7 (range, 1-19; median, 3) days. Average follow-up time was 28 (range, 12-53; median, 30) months. Recurrence of the hernia was found in 13 of 28 patients (46.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic slit mesh/keyhole repair is feasible, although it is a complex surgery reflected by extended operative time. The high recurrence rate suggests that technical improvement of the method is essential.