Prevention of parastomal hernia by the placement of a mesh at the primary operation

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.

Prophylactic mesh augmentation using permanent synthetic mesh: outcomes of keyhole and Stapled Ostomy Reinforcement with Retromuscular Mesh techniques

INTRODUCTION

Parastomal hernias (PSH) are the most common complication of stoma creation and can cause significant morbidity. We present a consecutive series of patients receiving prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) for prevention of PSH.

METHODS

This retrospective review evaluates the efficacy and outcomes of PMA for PSH prevention, and retrospectively compares traditional keyhole PMA (tPMA) (n = 28) with a prophylactic Stapled Ostomy Reinforcement with Retromuscular Mesh technique (pSTORRM) (n = 24).

RESULTS

PMA was performed in 52 cases between January 2015 and July 2018. All cases used a large-pore, non-coated, mid-weight polypropylene mesh placed in the retrorectus space. With a median follow-up of 16 mos, parastomal hernia was confirmed in 11.5% (n = 6), 5 of whom were symptomatic. patient-reported outcomes (PRO) indicated 6 additional patients with symptoms associated with PSH without clinical or radiographic confirmation. Patients had similar comorbidities and operative characteristics between tPMA and pSTORRM techniques, and no difference in a median follow-up. pSTORRM patients had fewer surgical site infections (8.3 vs 32.1%; p = 0.046) and occurrences (12.5 vs 46.4%; p = 0.015), and lower rate of PSH, though not statistically significant (4.2 vs 17.9%; p = 0.195).

CONCLUSION

Permanent synthetic mesh placed as a sublay in the retromuscular space is safe and appears to decrease the risk of PSH formation after the creation of permanent stomas. A stapled technique may provide advantages over a traditional keyhole technique.

Improved tissue integration of a new elastic intraperitoneal stoma mesh prosthesis

Parastomal herniation is a frequent complication in colorectal surgery, occurring with a prevalence of 30-80%. The aim of the study was to create a new intraperitoneal colostoma mesh prosthesis (IPST) with enhanced elastic properties made with thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) monofilaments. We performed open terminal sigmoid colostomies reinforced with either a 10 cm by 10 cm polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or a new TPU/PVDF composite mesh in a total of 10 minipigs. Colostoma was placed paramedian in the left lower abdomen and IPST meshes were fixed intraperitoneal. After 8 weeks, the animals were euthanized after laparoscopic exploration and specimen were explanted for histological investigations. Implantation of a new IPST-mesh with enhanced elastic properties was feasible in a minipig model within an observation period of 8 weeks. Immunohistochemically, Collagen I/III ratio as a marker of tissue integration was significantly higher in TPU-group versus PVDF group (9.4 ± 0.5 vs. 8.1 ± 0.5, p = 0.002) with a significantly lower inflammatory reaction measured by a smaller inner granuloma at mesh-colon interface (17.6 ± 3.3 μm vs. 23 ± 5 μm, p < 0.001). A new TPU/PVDF composite mesh with enhanced elastic properties as IPST was created. Stoma surgery and especially the evaluation of the new stoma mesh prosthesis are feasible with reproducible results in an animal model. Tissue integration expressed by Collagen I/III ratio seems to be improved in comparison to standard-elastic PVDF-IPST meshes.

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.

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.

Role of Prophylactic Mesh Placement for Laparotomy and Stoma Creation

Incisional and parastomal hernias are a cause of significant morbidity and have a substantial effect on quality of life and economic costs for patients and hospital systems. Although many aspects of abdominal hernias are understood, prevention is a feature that is still being realized. This article reviews the current literature and determines the utility of prophylactic mesh placement in prevention of incisional and parastomal hernias.

Prevention of parastomal hernia in the emergency setting

AIM

This study assessed safety and efficacy associated with hernia prophylaxis using a retromuscular slowly resorbable synthetic mesh for stoma reinforcement.

METHOD

This was a cohort study with a historic reference group. The study took place in a high-volume surgical department. During a 2-year period (July 2012-July 2014), we included 109 patients undergoing emergency surgery with formation of ileostomy or colostomy. All patients received a retromuscular slowly resorbable synthetic mesh (TIGR®, Novus Scientific) at the stoma site. The reference group included 117 patients who underwent emergency stoma formation without a prophylactic mesh in the 2-year period prior to July 2012. The primary endpoint was effect on prevention of parastomal hernia within 1 year. Secondary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year complications including mortality.

RESULTS

The operative field was contaminated or dirty in 48% of the procedures. Operative time was significantly longer in the mesh group. The cumulative incidences of parastomal hernia at 1 year for the control and the mesh group were 8 and 7% (p = 0.424), respectively. The postoperative 30-day and 1-year rate of complications, reoperations and mortality were not different between the two groups. No patients underwent removal of the mesh and no clinical mesh infections were seen.

CONCLUSION

Use of a resorbable synthetic mesh during emergency ostomy formation showed no significant preventive effect on formation of parastomal hernia after 1 year. Although surgery was often conducted in a severely contaminated field, the procedure was without significantly increased complication rate.

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.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia

BACKGROUND

Rates of parastomal hernia following stoma formation remain high. Previous systematic reviews suggested that prophylactic mesh reduces the rate of parastomal hernia; however, a larger trial has recently called this into question. The aim was to determine whether mesh placed at the time of primary stoma creation prevents parastomal hernia.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched using medical subject headings for parastomal hernia, mesh and prevention. Reference lists of identified studies, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were also searched. All randomized clinical trials were included. Two authors extracted data from each study independently using a purpose-designed sheet. Risk of bias was assessed by a tool based on that developed by Cochrane.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials were identified among 150 studies screened. In total 649 patients were included in the analysis (324 received mesh). Overall the rates of parastomal hernia were 53 of 324 (16·4 per cent) in the mesh group and 119 of 325 (36·6 per cent) in the non-mesh group (odds ratio 0·24, 95 per cent c.i. 0·12 to 0·50; P < 0·001). Mesh reduced the rate of parastomal hernia repair by 65 (95 per cent c.i. 28 to 85) per cent (P = 0·02). There were no differences in rates of parastomal infection, stomal stenosis or necrosis. Mesh type and position, and study quality did not have an independent effect on this relationship.

CONCLUSION

Mesh placed prophylactically at the time of stoma creation reduced the rate of parastomal hernia, without an increase in mesh-related complications.

[Prevention of paracolostomic hernia]

AIM

To improve the prevention of paracolostomic hernias.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied the prevention of paracolostomic hernia using mesh allograft. The study involved 73 patients with low-ampullary rectal cancer. Open or laparoscopic abdominoperineal extirpation of rectum was performed in all observations. 21 patients underwent prophylactic Sugarbaker's repair of paracolostomic area. We used the modifications of this surgical stage for transabdominal and retroperitoneal stoma.

RESULTS

There were no postoperative complications associated with the use of allograft. The hernia occurred in one case (4.8%) of prevention group and in 14 (26.9%) patients of control group.

CONCLUSION

The first results of composite allograft application to prevent paracolostomic hernias are encouraging. The absence of specific complications and favorable long-term results allow to continue the investigation.

Prophylactic mesh at end-colostomy construction reduces parastomal hernia rate: a randomized trial

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is the most common complication of an end-colostomy and about one-quarter of patients need operative repair, which is often unsuccessful. A randomized trial was carried out to compare the results of using mesh or no mesh at the time of formation of a colostomy with the clinical identification of PSH as the primary outcome.

METHOD

In this two-centre randomized trial (Oslo University Hospital and Sykehuset Innlandet Hospital Trust, Norway), patients with rectal cancer undergoing open pelvic surgery were randomized to receive a retromuscular synthetic mesh (study group, n = 32) or no mesh (control group, n = 26) at the time of end-colostomy formation. Postoperative follow up was not blinded and included clinical examination and routine CT.

RESULTS

The median period of follow up was 40 (range: 84) months. There were no differences in demographic variables or complications between the study and control groups. PSH developed in two patients of the study group and in 12 of the control group [OR = 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01-0.30) and hazard ratio 0.134 (95% CI: 0.030-0.603); P < 0.001]. The number needed to treat to avoid one PSH was 2.5 patients. CT demonstrated an increase over time in the size of the fascial orifice in patients with PSH without mesh prophylaxis, in contrast to a stable size in patients with mesh and in the control patients who did not develop PSH.

CONCLUSION

The retromuscular insertion of synthetic mesh at the time of formation of an end-colostomy reduced the risk of PSH.

Prevention of parastomal hernias with 3D funnel meshes in intraperitoneal onlay position by placement during initial stoma formation

PURPOSE

In patients with terminal ostomies, parastomal hernias (PSHs) occur on a frequent basis. They are commonly associated with various degrees of complaints and occasionally lead to life-threatening complications. Various strategies and measures have been tested and evaluated, but to date there is a lack of published evidence with regard to the best surgical technique for the prevention of PSH development.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of eighty patients, who underwent elective permanent ostomy formation between 2009 and 2014 by means of prophylactic implantation of a three-dimensional (3D) funnel mesh in intraperitoneal onlay (IPOM) position.

RESULTS

PSH developed in three patients (3.75%). No mesh-related complications were encountered and none of the implants had to be removed. Ostomy-related complications had to be noted in seven (8.75%) cases. No manifestation of ostomy prolapse occurred. Follow-up time was a median 21 (range 3-47) months.

CONCLUSION

The prophylactical implantation of a specially shaped, 3D mesh implant in IPOM technique during initial formation of a terminal enterostomy is safe, highly efficient and comparatively easy to perform. As opposed to what can be achieved with flat or keyhole meshes, the inner boundary areas of the ostomy itself can be well covered and protected from the surging viscera with the 3D implants. At the same time, the vertical, tunnel-shaped part of the mesh provides sufficient protection from an ostomy prolapse. Further studies will be needed to compare the efficacy of various known approaches to PSH prevention.

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.

Incisional reinforcement in high-risk patients

Hernia formation after surgical procedures continues to be an important cause of surgical morbidity. Incisional reinforcement at the time of the initial operation has been used in some patient populations to reduce the risk of subsequent hernia formation. In this article, reinforcement techniques in different surgical wounds are examined to identify situations in which hernia formation may be prevented. Mesh use for midline closure, pelvic floor reconstruction, and stoma site reinforcement is discussed. Additionally, the use of retention sutures, closure of the open abdomen, and reinforcement after component separation are examined using current literature. Although existing studies do not support the routine use of mesh reinforcement for all surgical incisions, certain patient populations appear to benefit from reinforcement with lower rates of subsequent hernia formation. The identification and characterization of these groups will guide the future use of mesh reinforcement in surgical incisions.

Stoma-Const--the technical aspects of stoma construction: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The construction of a colostomy is a common procedure, but the evidence for the different parts of the construction of the colostomy is lacking. Parastomal hernia is a common complication of colostomy formation. The aim of this study is to standardise the colostomy formation and to compare three types of colostomy formation (one including a mesh) regarding the development of parastomal hernia.

METHODS/DESIGN

Stoma-Const is a Scandinavian randomised trial comparing three types of colostomy formation. The primary endpoint is parastomal herniation as shown by clinical examination or CT scan within one year. Secondary endpoints are re-admission rate, postoperative complications (classified according to Clavien-Dindo), stoma-related complications (registered in the case record form at stoma care nurse follow-up), total length of hospital stay during 12 months, health-related quality of life and health economic analysis as well as re-operation rate and mortality within 30 days and 12 months of primary surgery. Follow-up is scheduled at 4-6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months. Inclusion is set at 240 patients.

DISCUSSION

Parastomal hernia is a common complication after colostomy formation. Several studies have been performed with the aim to reduce the rate of this complication. However, none are fully conclusive and data on quality of life and health economy are lacking. The aim of this study is to develop new standardised techniques for colostomy formation and evaluate this with patient reported outcomes as well as clinical and radiological assessment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01694238.2012-09-24.

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.

Stoma issues in the obese patient

Stoma creation in the obese patient presents technical challenges beyond the usual considerations that surround stoma creation. Both short-term and long-term stoma complication rates are higher in the obese patient. One must always strive to create a protruding well-vascularized stoma while maximizing the potential to restore bowel continuity in the future. This article will discuss the potential complications and difficulties associated with the creation of a stoma in the obese patient. It will also discuss the traditional techniques for creating the stoma and include modifications that may be required in the obese patient. It will cover technical tips that may help to avoid the complications and pitfalls of creating a stoma in the obese patient.

Intestinal stomas: indications, management, and complications

The ability to appropriately construct and care for an ostomy is crucial to good colorectal surgical practice. Enterostomal therapy is critical to the successful management of ostomies and their complications. Although associated with morbidity, a well-constructed ostomy can provide our patients with a good, durable QoL.

A systematic review on the use of prophylactic mesh during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia formation

AIM

Despite advances in surgical technique, parastomal herniation is common. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of prophylactic mesh at primary operation in reducing the incidence of parastomal hernia.

METHOD

Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched for relevant publications between January 1980 and January 2010. The search strategy included text terms and MESH headings for parastomal hernia, mesh and prevention and/or prophylaxis of hernia. No language restrictions were applied. Bibliographies from the papers requested in full were manually checked. All randomized controlled trials were included regardless of the language of publication. Results were extracted from the papers by two observers independently on a predefined data sheet. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. REVMAN 5 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Of 27 possible studies three randomized controlled trials fulfilled the criteria for systematic review, with a total of 128 patients (mesh 64, no mesh 64). The two study groups were well matched demographically. The incidence of parastomal hernia in the mesh group was 12.5% (8/64) compared with 53% (34/64) in the control group (P < 0.0001). There was no difference in mesh related morbidity in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Although only three trials with 128 patients fulfilled the criteria for this systematic review, the data suggest that the use of prophylactic prosthetic mesh at the time of primary stoma formation reduces the incidence of parastomal hernia.

Sigmoidostomy-Related Parastomal Hernia

Background and Aims:

The aim was to examine prevalence and treatment of parastomal hernias in patients with sigmoidostomy.

Materials and Methods:

In 2009, the medical records of 447 consecutive patients operated with a sigmoidostomy from January 1999 to December 2008 were retrospectiely reviewed. 119 dead patients (26.6%) were excluded because of short follow up (n = 59) and insufficient clinical data (n = 60). 328 patients (73.4%) were followed-up, of whom 210 (64%) alive patients also were scrutinized for presence of parastomal hernia by phone interview. In 2010, 92 out of 153 alive patients (60.1%) without known parastomal hernia also underwent targeted clinical examination in the ambulatory unit.

Results and Conclusion:

Follow up from stoma operation in 328 patients was median 20 (range 1–129) months. 319 patients had an end sigmoidostomy and nine patients had a loop sigmoidostomy. Time to parastomal hernia in 66 patients (20.1%) was median 9 (1–54) months. Fourty four patients (66.7%) reported no symptoms, eight (12.1%) had mild discomfort, six (9.1%) leakage, six (9.1%) pain, and two (3%) episodes of intestinal obstruction. Eleven (16.7%) had a hernia operation, eight with onlay mesh repair complicated with bowel perforation and ventral hernia in one patient. Three with mesh repair (37.5%) developed recurrent parastomal hernia, of whom one had tissue repair and a second recurrence 6 months later. The only patient with initial tissue repair had a recurrent hernia successfully treated with mesh repair. Two patients had their stoma uneventfully reversed. Parastomal hernia rate, mainly treated with mesh repair, was fairly low in this heterogenous patient series.

Experiences with a prophylactic mesh in 93 consecutive ostomies

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia may be present in half of patients after one year. A prophylactic low-weight prosthetic mesh in a sublay position at the index operation reduces the risk of parastomal hernia, without increasing the rate of complications.

MATERIAL

Between April 2003 and November 2006 all patients with an ostomy created at an open laparotomy were followed for at least one year.

RESULTS

A prophylactic mesh was used in 75 of 93 patients. In 9 a prophylactic mesh could not be placed due to scarring after previous surgery. In 9 a mesh was omitted after surgeon's decision. In 19 patients a mesh was used in severely contaminated wounds. With a mesh 6 of 73 (8%) patients developed a surgical site infection and without a mesh 4 of 15 (27%). With a mesh parastomal hernia was present in 8 of 61 (13%) patients and without a mesh in 8 of 12 (67%).

CONCLUSIONS

Creating a stoma in routine open surgery a prophylactic mesh can be placed in most patients. A mesh does not increase the rate of complications and can be used in severely contaminated wounds.

Systematic review of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia is a major complication after stoma placement. Surgical procedures for repairing parastomal hernia are difficult and their failure rate is high. The use of a mesh implanted at the primary operation has shown promising results. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the results of the placement of mesh at the time of stoma formation with the aim of preventing parastomal hernia.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the keywords "parastomal or paracolostomy hernia." Data regarding the incidence of hernia, the operative parameters, including mesh placement and types, and complications, including infection, stoma necrosis, and stenosis, were used and analyzed to evaluate the use of prophylactic mesh at the time of stoma formation.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials, three prospective observational series, and one retrospective study were selected and summarized. During the follow-up period (observation time of 1-83 months), parastomal hernia was present in 32/58 patients (55%) who did not have mesh placement and in 14/179 patients (7.82%) in whom mesh was used. Meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials showed that prophylactic use of the mesh significantly diminished the incidence of parastomal hernia (p < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity levels were similar whether the mesh was placed or not.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of mesh at the time of stoma formation is a safe procedure and reduces the risk of parastomal hernia. For more detailed evaluation, additional large, double-blinded, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are necessary.

[Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernia]

Parastomal hernias are a common complication after stoma formation. An exact evaluation of the history of the patients reveals clinically impairing symptoms in the majority of patients. The surgical treatment should generally be based on the augmentation or even replacement of the abdominal wall by non-resorbable meshes. The laparoscopic repair can be performed using the intraperitoneal placement of a mesh according to Sugarbaker with a wide lateralization of the stoma loop, the keyhole-technique, which means an incised mesh placed around the stoma loop, or the combination of both techniques (sandwich-technique). By far the best results can be achieved with the sandwich-technique. The recurrence rate in our series is less than 3% with an acceptable complication rate. The literature demonstrates high recurrence rates after keyhole-repair and the Sugarbaker-technique was also shown to be ineffective by our own data. In summary the laparoscopic sandwich-technique is a technically challenging but very successful method for long-lasting repair of parastomal hernias leading to an astonishingly low recurrence rate.

Management of patients with hernia or incisional hernia undergoing surgery for morbid obesity

Morbidly obese patients (MOPs) are predisposed to developing abdominal wall hernias with the potential complication of small bowel obstruction and other morbidity. We report our experience in treating morbidly obese patients. Hernia prophylaxis has been attempted as a means of decreasing the incisional hernia risk associated with weight loss surgery. The controversy regarding the optimal time and method of repair of abdominal wall hernias in patients undergoing open or laparoscopic gastric bypass is discussed with emphasis placed on either a simultaneous repair or splits of the omentum, and of leaving a plug in the hernia defect, to allow time to perform a delayed repair.

Parastomal hernia: clinical and radiological definitions

INTRODUCTION

Parastomal hernia is a frequent complication after stoma formation. No consistent definition of parastomal hernia has been used in previous studies using clinical examination or computed tomography (CT) scan. The correlation between herniation rates found with clinical examination and CT scan has been poor. A definition of parastomal hernia with clinical examination that correlates with findings from CT scan should be sought.

METHODS

Parastomal hernia, was with surgeons' clinical examination, defined as any protrusion in the vicinity of the stoma with the patient straining in a supine and an erect position. A new CT scan method was developed with the patient examined in the prone position. Radiologists defined herniation as any intra-abdominal content protruding beyond the peritoneum or the presence of a hernia sac. The correlation between investigators and methods were estimated by calculating Fleiss' Kappa values.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were assessed by three surgeons and three radiologists. For the surgeons, the Kappa value was 0.85. For the radiologists, it was 0.85 with CT scan in the prone position and 0.82 in the supine position. For the surgeons and radiologists collectively, the Kappa value was 0.80 for CT scan in the prone position and 0.63 in the supine position.

CONCLUSION

With the new CT scan method examining patients in the prone position, the clinical and radiological definitions were highly reproducible and correlated strongly between methods and raters. With the strong correlation between clinical and radiological assessments, clinical examination alone is sufficient as follow-up. Conventional CT scan with the patient supine is not a reliable tool for diagnosing parastomal hernia.

Minimal anatomical disruption in stoma formation: the lateral rectus abdominis positioned stoma (LRAPS)

AIM

Parastomal hernias are difficult to manage and recent attention has focused on their prevention including the use of prophylactic mesh at the time of initial surgery.

METHOD

A novel 'anatomical' approach to stoma formation, the lateral rectus abdominis positioned stoma (LRAPS), involving minimal anterior abdominal wall disruption is described.

RESULTS

LRAPS was carried out electively (n = 25) or as an emergency (n = 4) for benign or malignant pathology. Twenty-two had a midline laparotomy and all types of stomas were fashioned. There were two early and three later deaths from advanced malignancy. No parastomal hernias have been detected at a mean follow-up of 13 (range 7-18) months and none detected by CT scanning in 20 of 24 patients with colorectal cancer at a mean follow-up of 14 (range 10-18) months.

CONCLUSION

LRAPS reduces the incidence of early stomal herniation.

Prevention of parastomal herniation with biologic/composite prosthetic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Parastomal herniation is a frequent complication of stoma formation and can be difficult to repair satisfactorily, making it a recognized cause of significant morbidity. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials was performed to determine the benefits and risks of mesh reinforcement versus conventional stoma formation in preventing parastomal herniation.

STUDY DESIGN

Trials were identified from The Cochrane Library trials register, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and reference lists. The primary outcome was the incidence of parastomal herniation. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of parastomal herniation requiring surgical repair, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The risk ratio (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Three trials with 129 patients were included. Composite or biologic mesh was used in either the preperitoneal or sublay position. Mesh reinforcement was associated with a reduction in parastomal herniation versus conventional stoma formation (RR 0.23, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.81; p = 0.02), and a reduction in the percentage of parastomal hernias requiring surgical treatment (RR 0.13, 95%CI 0.02 to 1.02; p = 0.05). There was no difference between groups in stoma-related morbidity (2 of 58, 3.4% in the mesh group versus 2 of 57, 3.5% in the conventional group; p = 0.97), nor was there any mortality related to the placement of mesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Composite or biologic mesh reinforcement of stomas in the preperitoneal/sublay position is associated with a reduced incidence of parastomal herniation with no excess morbidity. Mesh reinforcement also demonstrates a trend toward a decreased incidence of parastomal herniation requiring surgical repair.

[Parastomal hernia treatment with prosthetic mesh repair]

After stoma formation, parastomal hernia develops in 30-50% of patients, with one-third of these require operative correction. Recurrence rates are very high after suture repair of parastomal hernias or relocation of the stoma. Open or laparoscopic mesh repairs have resulted in much lower recurrence rates. Long-term follow-up of the various techniques for parastomal hernia repair is lacking, as are randomized trials. A prophylactic prosthetic mesh placed in a sublay position at the index operation has reduced the rate of parastomal hernia in randomized trials. A prophylactic mesh in an onlay position, a sublay position, and an intraperitoneal onlay position has also been associated with low herniation rates in non-randomized studies. Although several questions within this field still have to be answered, it seems obvious that use of a mesh represents a suitable measure for the prevention of parastomal hernia as well as parastomal hernia repair.