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

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.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery

BACKGROUND

Stoma closure is a widely performed surgical procedure, with 6295 undertaken in England in 2018 alone. This procedure is associated with significant complications; incisional hernias are the most severe, occurring in 30% of patients. Complications place considerable financial burden on the NHS; hernia costs are estimated at GBP 114 million annually. As recent evidence (ROCSS, 2020) found that prophylactic meshes significantly reduce rates of incisional hernias following stoma closure surgery, an evaluation of this intervention vs. standard procedure is essential.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted using data from the ROCSS prospective multi-centre trial, which followed 790 patients, randomly assigned to mesh closure (n = 394) and standard closure (n = 396). Quality of life was assessed using mean EQ-5D-3L scores from the trial, and costs in GBP using UK-based sources over a 2-year time horizon.

RESULTS

The CUA yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 128,356.25 per QALY. Additionally, three univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate an increased benefit with mesh prophylaxis, but at an increased cost. Although the intervention is cost-ineffective and greater than the ICER threshold of GBP 30,000/QALY (NICE), further investigation into mesh prophylaxis for at risk population groups is needed.

Polydioxanone Internal Support Matrix: A Rationale for Prophylactic Internal Bra Support in Breast Augmentation

Background

Textured breast implants have been used in aesthetic breast surgery to decrease the rates of implant malposition. A recent analysis of a large-volume single-surgeon experience found statistically similar rates of malposition in smooth vs micro-textured breast implants.

Objectives

Prophylactic use of a polydioxanone (PDO) internal support matrix in breast augmentation was hypothesized to prevent scar malposition and increase pocket control.

Methods

In total, 200 patients received silicone gel primary augmentations performed by a single surgeon from January 2018 to December 2020; 84 patients received smooth implants alone; 49 patients received micro-textured implants; and 67 patients received smooth implants plus PDO internal support matrix. All surgeries were performed in the dual plane using an inframammary incision. Implant-related complications and scar malposition were recorded and compared.

Results

No significant difference in implant-related complication rates was found between shell types (3.57% for smooth devices alone and 2.04% for textured devices [P = 0.62; 95% CI −0.06 to 0.01]). There were zero complications in the smooth plus mesh study arm. A comparison of scar malposition rates between the smooth alone and textured groups revealed no significant difference (15.4% for smooth devices and 8.16% for textured devices [P = 0.23; 95% CI −0.12 to 0.01]). The smooth implant group with the prophylactic placement of PDO mesh had the lowest scar malposition rate of 4.48%, a significant difference compared with the smooth devices alone (P = 0.03; 95% CI −0.21 to −0.01).

Conclusions

Micro-textured devices show a trend toward decreased scar malposition, although not significant. Prophylactic use of PDO internal support matrix in silicone gel breast augmentation is safe and has the lowest incidence of scar malposition.

Level of Evidence: 3

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.

Short-term outcomes of parastomal hernia prophylaxis with Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) in permanent stomas

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias occur in 50-80% after stoma formation. Even with mesh repairs, recurrence can be as high as 33%. Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) places a prophylactic onlay mesh in the trephine during permanent stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia. Our study aims to describe the short-term outcomes of SMART procedures.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients receiving the SMART procedure from 2015 to 2020 was conducted.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

non-Crohn's colorectal and urological surgery with permanent stoma formation. The SMART surgical technique incorporates a 70-mm circular piece of polypropylene mesh by stapling it to the muscular abdominal wall using a circular stapler, and attaching the edge of the mesh to the deep fascia.

RESULTS

Fifty patients had a total of 53 SMART procedures. Median follow-up was 27 months. Procedures included: 35 end colostomies, five end ileostomies, eight ileal urinary conduits and five double-barrelled wet colostomies. Four patients had parastomal hernia during follow-up. One was acute, on day 1, due to very large size of trephine, one in a double-barrelled wet stoma that was repaired laparoscopically, one had a stomal prolapse requiring revision at 3 years and one patient had early small bowel obstruction due to very small size of trephine requiring another surgery. There were no wound infections or mesh-related sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic parastomal herniation occurred in 8% of the study population, and most complications were due to incorrect choice of stapled trephine diameter. Longer term follow-up is required to assess for problematic parastomal hernia.

Current Management of Intestinal Stomas and Their Complications

Inappropriate stoma site, improper management of stoma, and stoma complications lead to diminished quality of life of ostomates. Healthcare professionals involved in stoma creation and/or care should have the fundamental and updated knowledge of the management of stomas and their complications. This review article consists of the following major sections: principles of perioperative patient management, early complications, and late complications. In the “principles of perioperative patient management” section, the current concepts and trends in preoperative education, stoma site marking, postoperative education, and patient educational resources are discussed. In the “early complications” section, we have focused on the etiology and current management of ischemia/necrosis, fluid and electrolyte imbalances, mucocutaneous separation, and retraction. In the “late complications” section, we have focused on the etiology and current management of parastomal hernia, stoma prolapse, parastomal varices, and pyoderma gangrenosum. Pre- and postoperative patient education facilitates the patient's independence in stoma care and resumption of normal activities. Healthcare providers should have basic skills and updated knowledge on the management of stomas and complications of stomas, to act as the first crisis manager for ostomates.

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.

[Principles and parallels of prevention and repair of parastomal hernia with meshes]

After formation of a permanent terminal stoma by enterostomy, parastomal hernia (PSH) occurs in up to 80% of cases and leads to a wide variety of symptoms and complications with a high rate of emergency operations due to incarceration (ca. 15%). Consequently, greater consideration should be given to PSH prevention even as early as the time of enterostomy and generously applied indications for elective repair of manifest PSH. The aim of this article is to summarize and evaluate the current evidence for PSH repair and prevention. Poor postoperative results after attempted repair of manifest PSH with slit meshes in different layers of the abdominal wall shift the focus onto stoma lateralization (sandwich and Sugarbaker techniques) or 3‑dimensional tunnel-shaped implants with meshes to cover the stomal edges. To date, the best strategy for PSH prevention has still not been defined and techniques with slit meshes show different results. Nevertheless, 10 prospective randomized trials, meta-analyses, a Cochrane review and guidelines from the European Hernia Society (EHS) about various slit-mesh devices in sublay, onlay and intraperitoneal positions confirmed significantly reduced rates of PSH after mesh augmentation compared to conventionally sutured enterostomy without morbidity associated with the implanted material. Despite the positive data situation PSH prevention is seldom performed in daily practice, which is due to uncertainty surrounding the most suitable surgical strategy, the necessity to spend additional time at the end of a demanding operation, the aversion to implanting meshes into a contaminated operative field and the lack of remuneration of preventive surgical procedures. Future trials should, therefore, no longer compare standard enterostomy techniques with one prevention method in general but should have a new focus on techniques providing adequate results in PSH repair (Sugarbaker, sandwich and 3‑D tunnel meshes), probe the advantages and evaluate the differences in outcome between these strategies.

Preoperative stoma site marking: a simple practice to reduce stoma-related complications

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the incidence and identify the risk factors of stoma-related complications in a consecutive series of patients treated at a single institution.

METHODS

For this retrospective analysis, the medical records of patients followed up at the stoma care centre of our institution over the last 16 years were reviewed. The primary end point was the incidence of stoma-related complications. Risk factors were tested using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Of a total of 1076 patients, 604 received a colostomy and 472 an ileostomy. In all, 1055 stoma-related complications were recorded in 797 patients. Univariate analysis identified the following risk factors for stoma-related complications: male sex (p = 0.032), emergency surgery (p = 0.010), open surgery (p < 0.001), and ileostomy creation (p = 0.004). Preoperative stoma site marking was noted to play a protective role (hazard ratio 0.739; 95% confidence interval 0.576-0.947; p = 0.017). Multivariate analysis confirmed male sex and ileostomy creation as risk factors (p = 0.030 and p = 0.013, respectively) and preoperative stoma site marking as an independent protective factor (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Stoma-related complications are quite common, especially when an ileostomy is present. Preoperative stoma site marking was noted to play a highly protective role not only in reducing the complication rate but also in improving the patients' quality of life.