Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Repair of Parastomal Hernias

Parastomal hernias are an inevitable consequence of ostomy formation and their repairs remain a challenge to many surgeons. With multiple systems of classification and a multitude of techniques for hernia repair ranging from suture to mesh repair, the literature remains sparse with regards to the optimal method of repair. The authors describe the most commonly adopted techniques, discuss preventative measures, and review the current literature in the context of perioperative outcomes and hernia recurrence.

Umbrella review of systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of using mesh in the prevention of parastomal hernias

BACKGROUND

This umbrella review aimed to summarize the findings and conclusions of published systematic reviews on the prophylactic role of mesh against parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

PRISMA-compliant umbrella overview of systematic reviews on the role of mesh in prevention of parastomal hernias was conducted. PubMed and Scopus were searched through November 2023. Main outcomes were efficacy and safety of mesh. Efficacy was assessed by the rates of clinically and radiologically detected hernias and the need for surgical repair, while safety was assessed by the rates of overall complications.

RESULTS

19 systematic reviews were assessed; 7 included only patients with end colostomy and 12 included patients with either ileostomy or colostomy. The use of mesh significantly reduced the risk of clinically detected parastomal hernias in all reviews except one. Seven reviews reported a significantly lower risk of radiologically detected parastomal hernias with the use of mesh. The pooled hazards ratio of clinically detected and radiologically detected parastomal hernias was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.26-0.41) and 0.55 (95%CI: 0.45-0.68), respectively. Six reviews reported a significant reduction in the need for surgical repair when a mesh was used whereas six reviews found a similar need for hernia repair. The pooled hazards ratio for surgical hernia repair was 0.46 (95%CI: 0.35-0.62). Eight reviews reported similar complications in the two groups. The pooled hazard ratio of complications was 0.81 (95%CI: 0.66-1).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of surgical mesh is likely effective and safe in the prevention of parastomal hernias without an increased risk of overall complications.

Effects of different mesh materials on complications after prophylactic placement for stoma formation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We primary aimed to synthesise the available data, assess the effectiveness of different mesh materials in prophylactic mesh placement, and rank these materials according to the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) and other stoma complications.

METHOD

This network meta-analysis performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Four databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of prophylactic mesh placement. The aggregated results were performed in the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random effects models.

RESULT

Thirteen randomised controlled trials from 1203 articles, met the inclusion criteria, including 681 cases without meshes, 65 cases with mesh material of xenogeneic acellular dermis (porcine/bovine), 27 cases with polypropylene/PG910, 114 cases with polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Monocryl), 117 cases with polypropylene/cellulose (ORC), 233 cases with polypropylene, and 35 cases with polypropylene/PVDF. In network A, compared with no mesh, only polypropylene (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04-0.80) were significantly associated with a reduction in the incidence of PSH. In network B, no statistical difference regarding stoma complications was found between mesh and no mesh.

CONCLUSION

Based on the network meta-analysis and ranking results, the polypropylene mesh material exhibited the best performance. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with larger sample sizes and high-quality randomised controlled trials.

The same parastomal hernia repairs rate in the different approaches to colostomy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the parastomal hernia repairs rate in the different approaches to colostomy and investigate the risk factors for parastomal hernia formation in patients with permanent colostomies.

METHODS

Consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection from June 2014 to July 2020 in West China Hospital were divided into two groups according to their surgical approach for permanent colostomies. The impact of different approaches to colostomy on parastomal hernia repairs was determined by comparing a group of patients receiving an extraperitoneal route to colostomy with a group receiving transperitoneal. Potential variables were evaluated first with univariate and then multivariate analyses to identify the risk factors for the formation of parastomal hernia.

RESULTS

Two hundred two subjects in the transperitoneal group and 103 in the extraperitoneal group attended the follow-up visit with a median follow-up period of 33 (25th-75th percentiles, 17-46) months. Clinically and radiologically detectable parastomal hernias were present in 76 of 202 (37.6%) and 14 of 103 (13.6%) subjects in the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal groups during the follow-up period (p＜0.01). Besides, 10 of 76 (13.1%) subjects in the transperitoneal group and 2 of 14 (14.3%) subjects in the extraperitoneal group underwent a parastomal hernia operation during the follow-up (p = 0.82). In addition, the transperitoneal approach of colostomy (p = 0.002), older age (p＜0.001), and higher body mass index (p = 0.013) were identified as independent risk factors for the occurrence of parastomal hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Extraperitoneal colostomy decreased the detectable parastomal hernias but did not reduce the surgical repair rate of parastomal hernias.

Synthetic Mesh in Contaminated Abdominal Wall Surgery: Friend or Foe? A Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

The use of synthetic mesh in contaminated fields is controversial. In the last decade, published data have grown in this matter suggesting favorable outcomes. However, multiple variables and scenarios that influence the results still make difficult to obtain convincing recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a review of relevant available data in English regarding the use of synthetic meshes in contaminated abdominal wall surgery using the Medline database. Articles including patients undergoing ventral hernia in contaminated fields were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Most studies support the use of synthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields, as they have shown lower recurrence rate and similar wound morbidity. Although no mesh seems ideal in this setting, most surgeons advocate for the use of reduced-in-weight polypropylene mesh. Sublay location of the prosthesis associated with complete fascial closure appears to offer better results in these patients. In addition, current evidence suggests that the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh when performing a stoma or for stoma reversal incisional hernias might be beneficial.

CONCLUSION

A better understanding of surgical site occurrences and its prevention, as well as the introduction of new reduced-in-weight meshes have allowed using synthetic meshes in a contaminated field. Although the use of mesh has indeed shown promising results in these patients, the surgical team should still balance pros and cons at the time of placing synthetics in contaminated fields.

A semi-Markov model comparing the lifetime cost-effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent parastomal hernia in patients undergoing end colostomy creation for rectal cancer

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common problem following colostomy. Using prophylactic mesh during end colostomy creation may reduce PSH incidence, but concerns exist regarding the optimal type of mesh, potential long-term complications, and cost-effectiveness of its use. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent PSH in patients undergoing end colostomy creation for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytical model, stratified by rectal cancer stages I-IV, to estimate the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefits (NMBs) of synthetic, biologic and no mesh from a UK NHS perspective. We pooled the mesh-related relative risks of PSH from 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and superimposed these on the baseline (no mesh) risk from a population-based cohort. Uncertainty was assessed in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Synthetic mesh was less costly and more effective than biologic and no mesh to prevent PSH for all rectal cancer stages. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the incremental NMBs (95% CI) ranged between £1,706 (£1,692 to £1,720) (stage I) and £684 (£678 to £690) (stage IV) for synthetic versus no mesh, and £2,038 (£1,997 to £2,079) (stage I) and £1,671 (£1,653 to £1,689) (stage IV) for synthetic versus biologic mesh. Synthetic mesh was more cost-effective than no mesh unless the relative risk of PSH was ≥0.95 for stages I-III and ≥0.93 for stage IV. [Correction added on 05 October 2021 after first online publication: The estimation of health outcomes (QALYs) for all three interventions evaluated (synthetic mesh; biologic mesh; no mesh) have been corrected in this version.] CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic mesh was the most cost-effective strategy to prevent the formation of PSH in patients after end colostomy for any rectal cancer stage; however, conclusions are dependent on which subset of RCTs are considered to provide the most robust evidence.

Use of prophylactic mesh during initial stoma creation to prevent parastomal herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication following stoma creation. Previous reviews found mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation beneficial in reducing PSH incidence. Since then, several multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) produced widely ranging results rendering previous findings debatable. This current review assessed whether combining the latest larger multicentre RCTs would alter the previous findings.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase were searched from the respective dates of inception until 15 January 2021. RCTs were included if they compared mesh with no mesh during initial stoma creation in adult patients to prevent PSH. Included RCTs were summarised narratively and meta-analysed to estimate the relative risk (RR) of PSH incidence (primary analysis), peristomal complications and PSH repair (secondary analyses). Several subgroup analyses were performed, including mesh type (synthetic/biologic), surgical technique (open/laparoscopic) and mesh position (sublay/intraperitoneal).

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were included in the primary meta-analysis (1070 patients); PSH incidence was reduced in patients with mesh compared with patients without mesh at maximal follow-up (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.77; I²  = 67%; P < 0.01). The number of PSH repairs was fewer in patients who had mesh (RR = 0.63; 0.35-1.14; I²  = 6%; P = 0.39), with no difference in peristomal complications (RR = 0.96; 0.55-1.70; I²  = 0%; P = 0.71), comparing with no mesh. Subgroup analyses suggested that placing synthetic mesh using an open sublay technique might be more beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation reduces PSH incidence and potentially its repair, without an increase in peristomal complications. However, substantial heterogeneity among included RCTs limits confidence in the results.

Mini-invasive Surgery and Parastomal Hernia: Higher Frequency and No Prophylactic Mesh Effect

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is very common. Recent reports suggest increased frequency after laparoscopic stoma formation compared with open surgery. A retrospective chart review was designed to appraise the outcomes regarding PSH in open and in laparoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients operated by rectal resection and planned end-colostomy in the period from 2004 to 2018 were reviewed. A total of 70 open and 101 laparoscopic operations were identified. A modified retromuscular mesh application through the trephine was used for the prevention of PSH in 42% of patients in the laparoscopic group.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 58 (1 to 167) months in the open group and 43 (0 to 153) months in the laparoscopic group. Patient characteristics were evenly distributed between the groups, except for more male patients and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Score as well as higher rates of patients with neoadjuvant treatment and mesh prophylaxis, in the laparoscopic group. Clinical PSH occurrences were 2 (3%) in the open group and 18 (18%) in the laparoscopic group (P=0.00). Propensity-weighted analysis estimates increased odds ratio (OR) for PSH in the laparoscopic group [OR=11.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-96.6]. PSH repair rates were 0 in the open group and 6/18 (33%) in the laparoscopic group. Mesh prophylaxis in the laparoscopic group did not influence PSH outcome (OR=1.4; 95% CI: 0.5-4.0). Computed tomography scans were assessable in 48 and 66 patients, with median follow-up timepoints of 42 and 30 months in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively, and 8 (18%) and 21 patients (32%) were diagnosed with PSH. Computed tomography assessment implied an increased risk for PSH in laparoscopy (OR=3.5; 95% CI: 1.1-11.9). Aggregate of chart and computed tomography occurrence of PSH showed an equivalent hazard (OR=3.2; 95% CI: 1.1-9.5).

INTERPRETATIONS

Laparoscopic operations with stoma formation seem to have an increased rate of PSH in comparison with open operations and the results support previous claims. Retromuscular keyhole mesh placement may not be the ideal method of PSH prevention in laparoscopic stoma formation.

Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was the PSH rate at 1 year of follow-up with or without the use of a mesh.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

European guidelines currently recommend the use of a mesh at the time of a stoma formation for the prevention of PSH. These recommendations are based on the RCT and meta-analyses published before 2017. More recently 2 large RCT found no benefit in the mesh group. We investigated whether these latest results could change the conclusion of a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search and analyzed RCT investigating the use of a mesh to prevent PSH formation. All studies including end colostomies were included in the qualitative analysis no matter the surgical technique or the type of mesh. All studies with a limited risk of bias and presenting with usable data were used in the quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

There is a large heterogeneity among the studies, in terms of position of the mesh, surgical technique, and diagnostic method for the PSH.No statistically significant difference was found on the PSH rate at 1 or 2 years between the mesh and non-mesh groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this meta-analysis including the latest RCT on the prevention of PSH, the use of a mesh should not be recommended.

End Colostomy With or Without Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia (GRECCAR 7): A Prospective, Randomized, Double Blinded, Multicentre Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether systematic mesh implantation upon primary colostomy creation was effective to prevent PSH.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Previous randomized trials on prevention of PSH by mesh placement have shown contradictory results.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in 18 hospitals in France on patients aged ≥18 receiving a first colostomy for an indication other than infection. Participants were randomized by blocks of random size, stratified by center in a 1:1 ratio to colostomy with or without a synthetic, lightweight monofilament mesh. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to patient group. The primary endpoint was clinically diagnosed PSH rate at 24 months of the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01380860.

RESULTS

From November 2012 to October 2016, 200 patients were enrolled. Finally, 65 patients remained in the no mesh group (Group A) and 70 in the mesh group (Group B) at 24 months with the most common reason for drop-out being death (n = 41). At 24 months, PSH was clinically detected in 28 patients (28%) in Group A and 30 (31%) in Group B [P = 0.77, odds ratio = 1.15 95% confidence interval = (0.62;2.13)]. Stoma-related complications were reported in 32 Group A patients and 37 Group B patients, but no mesh infections. There were no deaths related to mesh insertion.

CONCLUSION

We failed to show efficiency of a prophylactic mesh on PSH rate. Placement of a mesh in a retro-muscular position with a central incision to allow colon passage cannot be recommended to prevent PSH. Optimization of mesh location and reinforcement material should be performed.

Permanent end-colostomy parastomal hernia prevention using a novel three-dimensional mesh

PURPOSE

Prophylactic mesh placement has been proposed to reduce the high occurrence of parastomal hernia (PSH) after stoma formation.

METHODS

This is an observational study comparing two cohorts of patients: a mesh prophylaxis group (who received mesh prevention since introduction at our Institution) and a no mesh prophylaxis group (retrospectively selected from our historical series). Same exclusion criteria were applied for both groups. The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center for colorectal surgery. 43 patients were operated with mesh prophylaxis between May 2015 and may 2019. 45 patients underwent end-colostomy formation without prophylaxis between April 2011 and April 2015. The primary outcome measure was PSH development at 12-month follow up.

RESULTS

Demographic variables and risk factors for PSH were comparable between the two groups. There was no difference between the two cohorts in terms of operative time and main early postoperative outcomes. 37 patients completed the 12-month follow up in each group. PSH occurrence after 12-months was 11% in the mesh prophylaxis group and 54% in the no mesh prophylaxis group (p < 0.0001). There were no differences in long-term complications. 5% of patients who received mesh prophylaxis underwent emergency surgery for bowel occlusion at 7 and 10 months after surgery, with partial or complete mesh removal. At multivariate analysis, mesh prophylaxis was a protective factor for PSH development at 12 months (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh placement appears to be effective in preventing PSH.

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.

Prospective, Randomized Study on the Use of Prosthetic Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia in a Permanent Colostomy: Results of a Long-term Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias are common with permanent colostomies and prone to complications. The short-term results of trials of parastomal hernia prevention are widely published, but long-term results are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to detect the long-term effects and safety of preventive intra-abdominal parastomal mesh.

DESIGN

This is a long-term follow-up of a previous prospective randomized, controlled multicenter trial.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at 2 university hospitals and 3 central hospitals in Finland.

PATIENTS

Patients who had a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer between 2010 and 2013 were included in the study and invited for a follow-up visit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were clinical and radiological parastomal hernias.

RESULTS

Twenty subjects in the mesh group and 15 in the control group attended the follow-up visit with a median follow-up period of 65 (25th-75th percentiles, 49-91) months. A clinically detectable parastomal hernia was present in 4 of 20 (20.0%) and 5 of 15 (33.3%) subjects in the mesh and control groups (p = 0.45). A radiological parastomal hernia was present in 9 of 19 (45.0%) subjects in the mesh group and 7 of 12 (58.3%) subjects in the control group (p = 0.72). However, when all subjects (n = 70, 1:1) who attended the 12-month follow-up were screened for long-term results according to register data, 9 of 35 (25.9%) subjects in the mesh group and 16 of 35 (45.6%) subjects in control group were diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the follow-up period (p = 0.10). In addition, only 1 of 35 (2.7%) subjects in the mesh group but 6 of 35 (17.1%) subjects in the control group underwent a parastomal hernia operation during the long-term follow-up (p = 0.030).

LIMITATIONS

The study is limited by the small number of patients.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic intra-abdominal keyhole mesh did not decrease the rate of clinically detectable hernias but reduced the need for the surgical repair of parastomal hernias. Further trials are needed to identify a more efficient method to prevent parastomal hernias. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B171.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02368873. ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO ALEATORIZADO SOBRE EL USO DE MALLA PROTÉSICA PARA PREVENIR UNA HERNIA PARAESTOMAL EN UNA COLOSTOMÍA PERMANENTE: RESULTADOS DE UN SEGUIMIENTO A LARGO PLAZO: PREVENCIÓN DE HERNIA PARAESTOMAL, NEOPLASIA COLORRECTAL/ANAL: Las hernias paraestomales son comunes con colostomías permanentes y son propensas a complicaciones. Los resultados a corto plazo de los ensayos sobre la prevención de la hernia parastomal se publican ampliamente, pero los resultados a largo plazo son escasos.El objetivo del estudio es detectar los efectos a largo plazo y la seguridad de la malla parastomal intraabdominal preventiva.Este es un seguimiento a largo plazo de un estudio aleatorizado prospectivo, controlado y multicentrico previo.Este estudio se realizó en dos hospitales universitarios y tres hospitales centrales en Finlandia.Los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica por cáncer de recto 2010-2013 fueron incluidos en el estudio e invitados a una visita de seguimiento.Hernias parastomales clínicas y radiológicas.Veinte sujetos en el grupo de malla y 15 en el grupo control asistieron a la visita de seguimiento con una mediana de seguimiento de 65 meses (25-75 ° percentil 49-91). Una hernia paraestomal clínicamente detectable estuvo presente en 4/20 (20.0%) y 5/15 (33.3%) en los grupos de malla y control, respectivamente (p = 0.45). Una hernia parastomal radiológica estuvo presente en 9/19 (45.0%) en el grupo de malla y 7/12 (58.3%) en el grupo de control (p = 0.72). Sin embargo, cuando todos los sujetos (n = 70, 1: 1) que asistieron a los 12 meses de seguimiento fueron evaluados para obtener resultados a largo plazo de acuerdo con los datos del registro, 9/35 (25.9%) sujetos en el grupo de malla y 16/35 (45,6%) sujetos en el grupo control fueron diagnosticados con una hernia paraestomal durante el período de seguimiento (p = 0,10). Además, solo 1/35 (2.7%) en el grupo de malla pero 6/35 (17.1%) en el grupo control se sometieron a una operación de hernia paraestomal durante el seguimiento a largo plazo (p = 0.030).El estudio está limitado por un pequeño número de pacientes.La malla intra-abdominal profiláctica en ojo de cerradura no disminuyó la tasa de hernias clínicamente detectables, pero redujo la necesidad de la reparación quirúrgica de las hernias paraestomales. Se necesitan ensayos adicionales para identificar un método más eficiente para prevenir las hernias parastomales. Vea el resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B171. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).NCT02368873.

Chimney Trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias (PSHs) are common, troubling the lives of people with permanent colostomy. In previous studies, retromuscular keyhole mesh placement has been the most-used technique for PSH prevention but results have been controversial. Additionally, surgical treatment of PSHs is associated with a high rate of complications and recurrences. Therefore, it is crucial to find the most effective way to prevent PSHs in the first place without an increased risk of complications. Due to a lack of adequate research, there is no clear evidence or recommendations on which mesh or technique is best to prevent PSHs.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Chimney Trial is a Nordic, prospective, randomized controlled, multicenter trial designed to compare the feasibility and the potential benefits of specifically designed, intra-abdominal onlay mesh (DynaMesh®-Parastomal, FEG Textiltechnik GmbH, Aachen, Germany) against controls with permanent colostomy without mesh. The primary outcome of the Chimney Trial is the incidence of a PSH detected by a computerized tomography (CT) scan at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are the rate of clinically detected PSHs, surgical-site infection as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), complications as defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification, the reoperation rate, operative time, length of stay, quality of life as measured by the RAND-36 survey and colostomy impact score, and both direct and indirect costs. For each group, 102 patients were enrolled at attending hospitals and randomized at a ratio of 1:1 by browser-based software to receive a preventive mesh or a conventional colostomy without a mesh. Patients will be followed for 1 month and at 1, 3, and 5 years after the operation for long-term results and complications.

DISCUSSION

The Chimney Trial aims to provide level-I evidence on PSH prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03799939. Registered on 10 January 2019.

Prevention of parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal excision with a prophylactic three-dimensional funnel mesh

AIM

A prophylactic three-dimensional (3D) funnel mesh using the keyhole technique (intraperitoneal onlay mesh position) in abdominoperineal excision (APR) may significantly decrease the parastomal hernia (PSH) index without increasing morbidity. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to analyse the incidence of PSH and postoperative complications in patients who underwent permanent colostomy with the use of a prophylactic 3D preformed mesh compared with patients without a mesh.

METHOD

Patients who underwent an end-colostomy after APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer in a colorectal surgery unit were divided into two groups: group 1 without a prophylactic mesh and group 2 with a prophylactic synthetic mesh. The main end-point was to analyse the incidence of PSH after a median follow-up of 2.8 years.

RESULTS

One hundred and ten patients (64 in group 1 and 46 in group 2, without significant clinical differences) underwent a permanent colostomy after APR. In group 1 70.3% developed a PSH, compared with 13% in group 2 (P < 0.001). Age (especially for patients ≥ 75 years) represented a significant risk factor for PSH. There were no differences in postoperative complications between the groups.

CONCLUSION

A prophylactic parastomal 3D mesh using the keyhole technique may reduce the incidence of PSH after permanent colostomy without an increase in postoperative complications.

Lateral pararectal versus transrectal stoma placement for prevention of parastomal herniation

BACKGROUND

A parastomal hernia is defined as an incisional hernia related to a stoma, and belongs to the most common stoma-related complications. Many factors, which are considered to influence the incidence of parastomal herniation, have been investigated. However, it remains unclear whether the enterostomy should be placed through, or lateral to the rectus abdominis muscle, in order to prevent parastomal herniation and other important stoma complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if there is a difference regarding the incidence of parastomal herniation and other stoma complications, such as ileus and stenosis, in lateral pararectal versus transrectal stoma placement in people undergoing elective or emergency abdominal wall enterostomy.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched for all types of published and unpublished randomized and non-randomized studies in four medical databases: CENTRAL, PubMed, LILACS, Science Ciation Index, and two trials registers: ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov to 9 November 2018. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized studies comparing lateral pararectal versus transrectal stoma placement with regard to parastomal herniation and other stoma-related complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We conducted data analyses according to the recommendations of Cochrane and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group (CCCG). We rated quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials (RCT)Only one RCT met the inclusion criteria. The participants underwent enterostomy placement in the frame of an operation for: rectal cancer (37/60), ulcerative colitis (14/60), familial adenomatous polyposis (7/60), and other (2/60).The results between the lateral pararectal and the transrectal approach groups were inconclusive for the incidence of parastomal herniation (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.48; low-quality evidence); development of ileus or stenosis (RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.19 to 20.9; low-quality evidence); or skin irritation (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13; moderate-quality evidence). The results were also inconclusive for the subgroup analysis in which we compared the effect of ileostomy versus colostomy on parastomal herniation. The study did not measured other stoma-related morbidities, or stoma-related mortality, but did measure quality of life, which was not one of our outcomes of interest.Non-randomized studies (NRS)Ten retrospective cohort studies, with a total of 864 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The indications for enterostomy placement and the baseline characteristics of the participants (age, co-morbidities, disease-severity) varied between studies. All included studies reported results for the primary outcome (parastomal herniation) and one study also reported data on one of the secondary outcomes (stomal prolapse).The effects of different surgical approaches on parastomal herniation (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.75; 10 studies, 864 participants; very low-quality evidence) and the occurrence of stomal prolapse (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.85; 1 study, 145 participants; very low-quality evidence) are uncertain.None of the included studies measured other stoma-related morbidity or stoma-related mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies found inconsistent results between the two compared interventions regarding their potential to prevent parastomal herniation.In conclusion, there is still a lack of high-quality evidence to support the ideal surgical technique of stoma formation. The available moderate-, low-, and very low-quality evidence, does not support or refute the superiority of one of the studied stoma formation techniques over the other.

Ostomy-Related Complications

Ileostomy or colostomy formation is an important component of many surgical procedures performed for a wide range of disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Despite the frequency with which intestinal stomas are created, stoma-related complications remain common and are associated with significant morbidity as well as cost. Some of the most prevalent complications of stoma formation which will be detailed in this article include peristomal skin complications, retraction, stomal necrosis, stomal stenosis, prolapse, bleeding, dehydration from high ostomy output, and parastomal hernia. The authors will review these common complications, detail means to avoid or prevent them, and outline recommendations for management.

Laparoscopic Modified Keyhole Technique with Coated Polyester Mesh for Treatment of Parastomal Hernia: Measures for Improving the Outcome

Purpose: Although the modified Sugarbaker technique gives good results for the treatment of parastomal hernia (PH), there are other valid options for the treatment of this frequent complication. In our practice, the laparoscopic keyhole (KH) technique, with some specific modifications, can give similar results. Materials and Methods: We collected data on all the patients with symptomatic PHs who underwent surgical repair between January 2002 and December 2017 in our surgical department. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the recurrence rate after at least 1 year, determined on the basis of physical examination during follow-up and on postprocedure radiological results. Results: Ninety patients were treated with the KH technique. The stomas that were treated were 83 end colostomies and 7 ileal ureterostomies. Eighty-eight patients were treated with polyester mesh (Parietex™, Medtronic, Ireland) and 2 with a composite mesh (Physiomesh™, Ethicon). Patients had median follow-up period of 1 year. Seroma occurred in 4 patients, who were treated conservatively by clinical monitoring. Four patients had a recurrence: 1 occurred on the seventh postoperative day, due to a technical error; 1 after 6 months, due to the partial shrinkage of the mesh into the defect; the third after 1 year, but it occurred at the beginning of our experience, and the last recurrence was after 3 years in a patient who gained 15 kg after the procedure. Conclusions: If a few precautionary steps are added to the original technique, laparoscopic KH repair is feasible and safe, giving good results in terms of complications and recurrence rates.

Preloop trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A temporary loop ileostomy, which is used to decrease the risk of symptomatic anastamotic leakage after anterior resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), is traditionally closed without any mesh. However, as 44% of incisional site hernias need further repair after stoma closure, attention has increasingly been paid to the use of mesh. Research on the prevention of these hernias is scarce, and no studies comparing different meshes exist.

METHOD/DESIGN

The Preloop trial (Clinical Trials NCT03445936) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial to compare synthetic mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and biological implants (Permacol™, Medtronic) at a retromuscular sublay position for the prevention of incisional site hernias after loop-ileostomy closure. The main endpoints in this trial are infections at 30-day follow-up and the incidence of hernias clinically or on CT scan at 10 months after closure of the stoma. The secondary endpoints are other complications within 30 days of surgery graded with the Clavien-Dindo classification, reoperation rate, operating time, length of stay, quality of life measured with RAND-36, and incidence of hernia over a 5-year follow-up period. A total of 100 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio.

DISCUSSION

This is a pilot trial that will be undertaken to provide some novel evidence on the safety profile and efficiency of both synthetic mesh and biological implants for the prevention of incisional hernias after closure by temporary loop ileostomy. The hypothesis is that synthetic mesh is economical but equally safe and at least as effective as biological implants in hernia prevention and in contaminated surgical sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03445936 . Registered on 7 February 2018.

New advances in prophylactic mesh placement in end colostomy

Patients with end colostomy often undergo multiple operations because of high incidence and recurrence rates of parastoml hernia. Therefore, it is particularly important to prevent the occurrence of parastomal hernia when undergoing an end colostomy. Using a prophylactic mesh, which is developed and gradually recognized in recent years, is one of the methods to prevent parastomal hernia. Here, we review the application and new advances in prophylactic mesh placement in end colostomy.

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.

Prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia: a position statement on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland

AIM

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) Delphi process identified prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia (PSH) as the second highest priority non-cancer related colorectal pathology. This position statement aims to summarize the current evidence base.

METHODS

Four broad themes were identified (prevention, diagnosis/classification, management and operative repair). Guidelines are based on evidence from an extensive literature review using organized searches on the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adhered to for classifying the quality of evidence and reporting the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

The suture repair of PSH other than for patients in extremis is not recommended. Synthetic non-absorbable mesh can be used safely in the short term in the construction of colostomies post rectal surgery, but longer-term follow-up is needed. Other broad recommendations are made around access to stoma care nurses, prevention classification and management.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of high quality evidence for many domains in the prevention and treatment of PSH but the results of several studies are awaited. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: Parastomal hernias are a common and debilitating condition following stoma formation. This position statement from ACPGBI details the current evidence base and ongoing research for the prevention, diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias.

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.

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement of stomas: a cost-effectiveness meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Previous meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested a reduction in parastomal hernias (PSH) with prophylactic mesh. However, concerns persist regarding variably supportive evidence and cost. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform a novel cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched (February 2018). We included RCTs assessing mesh reinforcement during stoma formation. We assessed PSH rates, subsequent repair, complications and operative time. Odds ratios (OR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were generated on intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) bases. These then informed cost analysis using 2017 UK/USA reimbursement rates and stoma care costs.

Results

Eleven RCTs were included. Four hundred fifty-three patients were randomised to mesh (PP 412), with 454 controls (PP 413). Six studies used synthetic meshes, three composite and two biological (91.7% colostomies; 3.64% ileostomies, 4.63% not specified). Reductions were seen in the number of hernias detected clinically and on computed tomography scan. For the former, ITT OR was 0.23 (95% confidence interval 0.11–0.51; p = 0.0003; n = 11); NNT 4.17 (2.56–10.0), with fewer subsequent repairs: OR 0.29 (0.13–0.64; p = 0.002; n = 7; NNT16.7 (10.0–33.3). Reductions persisted for synthetic and composite meshes. Operative time was similar, with zero incidence of mesh infection/fistulation, and fewer peristomal complications. Synthetic mesh demonstrated a favourable cost profile, with composite approximately cost neutral, and biological incurring net costs.

Conclusions

Reinforcing elective stomas with mesh (primarily synthetic) reduces subsequent PSH rates, complications, repairs and saves money. We recommend that future RCTs compare mesh subtypes, techniques, and applicability to emergency stomas.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.

METHODS

A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.

RESULTS

The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

Incisional hernia prevention and use of mesh. A narrative review

Incisional hernias are a very common problem, with an estimated incidence around 15-20% of all laparotomies. Evisceration is another important problem, with a lower rate (2.5-3%) but severe consequences for patients. Prevention of both complications is an essential objective of correct patient treatment due to the improved quality of life and cost savings. This narrative review intends to provide an update on incisional hernia and evisceration prevention. We analyze the current criteria for proper abdominal wall closure and the possibility to add prosthetic reinforcement in certain cases requiring it. Parastomal, trocar-site hernias and hernias developed after stoma closure are included in this review.