Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prophylactic Mesh During Primary Stoma Formation to Prevent Parastomal Hernia

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.

Effect of Sublay Preventive Mesh for Terminal Colostomy on Symptoms and Quality of Life in Patients With Parastomal Hernia: A Post Hoc Analysis of the GRECCAR 7 Cohort

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses confirm that the use of a prophylactic mesh does not significantly reduce the parastomal hernia rate. Data about the benefits of these meshes concerning the symptoms of parastomal hernia are lacking in the existing literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a post hoc analysis of the patients presenting parastomal hernia from the GRECCAR 7 (Groupe de recherche sur la chirurgie du cancer du rectum) randomized clinical trials cohort on whether the presence or the absence of the mesh influenced the symptoms, the quality of life, and complications of patients with parastomal hernias.

DESIGN

We studied the parastomal hernia-related symptoms among the 2 groups of the GRECCAR 7 randomized clinical trial, with or without prophylactic mesh at the time of the index surgery.

SETTINGS

Data were retrospectively extracted and analyzed from the GRECCAR 7 database.

PATIENTS

Patients diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the 2 years of the GRECCAR 7 study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Several prospectively collected data about the symptoms were studied among this population. We also studied the average interval between parastomal hernia repair surgery and both index surgery and diagnosis of parastomal hernia.

RESULTS

Among the 199 patients included in the GRECCAR study, 36 patients (35.6%) in the nonmesh group and 33 patients (33.7%) in the mesh group were diagnosed with clinical and/or radiological parastomal hernia at 2-year follow-up, without a statistically significant difference ( p = 0.89). None of the studied symptoms showed any statistically significant difference between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

This study relies on a relatively small number of patients, and although data were prospectively collected, we lacked some details about the categorization of parastomal hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the use of a prosthetic mesh in a sublay position to prevent parastomal hernia in terminal end colostomy patients should no longer be recommended. See Video Abstract .

EFECTO DE LA MALLA PREVENTIVA RETROMUSCULAR PARA COLOSTOMA TERMINAL CON RESPECTO A LOS SNTOMAS Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA EN PACIENTES CON HERNIA PARAESTOMAL UN ANLISIS POSTHOC DE LA COHORTE GRECCAR

ANTECEDENTES:Los recientes metaanálisis y ensayos clínicos aleatorizados confirman que el uso de una malla profiláctica no reduce significativamente la tasa de hernia paraestomal. En la literatura existente faltan datos sobre los beneficios de estas mallas en relación con los síntomas de la hernia paraestomal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis post-hoc de los pacientes que presentaron hernia paraestomal de la cohorte de 7 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados GRECCAR sobre si la presencia o ausencia de la malla influyó en los síntomas, la calidad de vida y las complicaciones de los pacientes con hernias paraestomales.DISEÑO:Estudiamos los síntomas relacionados con la hernia paraestomal entre los dos grupos del ensayo clínico aleatorizado GRECCAR 7, con o sin malla profiláctica en el momento de la cirugía índice.AJUSTES:Los datos fueron extraídos y analizados de manera retrospectiva de la base de datos GRECCAR 7.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal durante los dos años del estudio GRECCAR 7.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se estudiaron varios datos recopilados de manera prospectiva sobre los síntomas en esta población. También estudiamos el intervalo promedio entre la cirugía reparadora de la hernia paraestomal así como también la cirugía índice como el diagnóstico de la hernia paraestomal.RESULTADOS:De entre los 199 pacientes incluidos en el estudio GRECCAR, 36 pacientes (35,6%) fueron diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal de manera clínica y/o radiológica en el grupo sin malla a los 2 años de seguimiento y 33 (33,7%) en el grupo con malla, sin diferencia estadísticamente significativa ( p = 0,89). Ninguno de los síntomas estudiados mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se basa en un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes y, aunque los datos fueron recopilados de forma prospectiva, nos faltaron algunos detalles sobre la categorización de las hernias paraestomales.CONCLUSIONES:Creemos que ya no se debe recomendar el uso de una malla protésica en posición retromuscular para prevenir la hernia paraestomal en pacientes con colostomía terminal. (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Management of adult intestinal stomas: The 2023 French guidelines

AIM

Digestive stoma are frequently performed. The last French guidelines have been published twenty years ago. Our aim was to update French clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative management of digestive stoma and stoma-related complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of French and English articles published between January 2000 and May 2022 was performed. Only digestive stoma for fecal evacuation in adults were considered. Stoma in children, urinary stoma, digestive stoma for enteral nutrition, and rare stoma (Koch, perineal) were not included.

RESULTS

Guidelines include the surgical landmarks to create digestive stoma (ideal location, mucocutaneous anastomosis, utility of support rods, use of prophylactic mesh), the perioperative clinical practice guidelines (patient education, preoperative ostomy site marking, postoperative equipment, prescriptions, and follow-up), the management of early stoma-related complications (difficulties for nursing, high output, stoma necrosis, retraction, abscess and peristomal skin complications), and the management of late stoma-related complications (stoma prolapse, parastomal hernia, stoma stenosis, late stoma retraction). A level of evidence was assigned to each statement.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines will be very useful in clinical practice, and allow to delete some outdated dogma.

Parastomal hernia repairs: A nationwide cohort study in the Republic of Ireland

BACKGROUND

In the context of improving colorectal cancer outcomes, post-survivorship quality of life has become an important outcome measure. Parastomal hernias and their associated morbidity remain largely under-reported and under-appreciated. Despite their burden, conservative management is common. This study aims to provide a national overview on the current trends in parastomal hernia repairs (PHRs).

METHODS

All PHRs performed in public hospitals across the country between 1/2017 to 7/2022 were identified retrospectively from the National Quality Assurance and Improvement System (NQAIS) database. Anonymised patient characteristics and quality indices were extracted for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 565 PHRs, 64.1 % elective and the remainder emergent, were identified across 27 hospitals. The 8 national colorectal units performed 67.3 % of all repairs. While 42.3 % of PHRs were standalone procedures, reversal of Hartmann's procedure was the commonest simultaneous procedure in the remainder. The median age, ASA and Charlson Co-Morbidity Index were 64 years (19), 3(1) and 3(10) respectively. Mean length of stay (LOS) was 16.25 days (SD = 29.84). Linear regression analysis associated ASA (95 % CI 0.58-16.08, p < 0.035) and emergency admissions (95 % CI 5.86-25.55, P < 0.002) with a significantly longer LOS, with the latter also associated with more frequent emergency re-admissions (95 % CI 0.18-0.82, p < 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing emergency PHR were older and significantly more comorbid. Consequently, these patients were subjected to longer hospital stays, more frequent readmissions and overall higher hospital costs. Multidisciplinary perioperative optimisation and standardised referral pathways should underpin the shift towards elective PHRs.

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.

A technique for laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy with an intact posterior sheath of rectus

Regardless of the advances in surgical techniques, parastomal hernia is still an inevitable complication for many patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominal perineal resection (APR). Extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) seems to be a effective method to reduce the risk of parastomal hernia. We propose a new approach to simplify and standardize laparoscopic EPC to make this operation easy to perform. We used the technique of laparoscopic TEP groin hernia repair to produce an extraperitoneal tunnel, which can not only facilitate precise visualization of the extraperitoneal tunnel but also utilize the intact posterior rectus abdominis sheath as biologic materials to maintain soft-tissue augmentation, with a satisfactory result. With laparoscopy, we can create adequate space without insufficient dissection of the extraperitoneal tunnel while avoiding damage to the retrorectus sheath. At the time of writing, we had performed this method in four patients, without any complications. This technique is effective at preventing parastomal hernia without extra costs.

Cost Effectiveness of the Use of Prophylactic Mesh To Prevent Parastomal Hernia After Urinary Diversion with an Ileal Conduit

Background

Prophylactic lightweight mesh in the sublay position reduced the cumulative incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) after cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion in a randomised controlled trial.

Objective

To investigate whether the use of prophylactic mesh is cost-effective in comparison to no mesh from the health care provider perspective.

Design, setting, and participants

Data on health care resource utilisation (outpatient care and inpatient care) were obtained for 159 patients included in a randomised trial. The patients underwent surgery at Skåne University Hospital or Helsingborg County Hospital (80 with a prophylactic mesh and 79 without) and information about care was ascertained from the regional health care register. The patients underwent surgery between 2012 and 2017 and were followed until death or August 2020.

Outcome measurements and statistical analyses

The primary outcome measure was the clinical incidence of PSH. Costs are reported in Euro in 2020 prices (€1 = 10.486 Swedish Krona) and presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap procedure. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to capture the uncertainty for ICERs.

Results and limitations

The mean difference in total costs between the mesh and no-mesh groups was −€2047 (95% CI −€16 441 to €12 348). Seventeen patients (21.5%) in the no-mesh group developed clinical PSH versus six patients (7.5%) in the mesh group (p = 0.001). This indicates that mesh is less costly and more effective compared to no mesh from the health care provider perspective. Subgroup analyses showed that results were more advantageous for women and for patients younger than 71 yr and with less comorbidity than for their counterparts.

Conclusions

The use of prophylactic mesh during ileal conduit reconstruction to prevent PSH is cost-effective from the health care provider perspective.

Patient summary

In patients having their bladder surgically removed, a mesh implant can be inserted when a portion of the intestine is used to create an opening to drain urine from the body. Our results show that mesh use to prevent development of a hernia at the opening where urine exits the body is cost-effective from the perspective of health care providers.

Prophylactic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia Following End Colostomy: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation at reducing rates of parastomal hernia using the most recently available data.

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have uniformly concluded that the use of prophylactic surgical mesh when fashioning an end colostomy reduces the risk of parastomal hernia. However, recent RCTs have failed to corroborate these findings. This study was designed to provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation.

METHODS

A search of Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was performed. Articles were included if they were RCTs that compared the use of prophylactic mesh to no prophylactic mesh during construction of an end colostomy following colorectal resection for benign or malignant disease. The primary outcome was parastomal hernia rate. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects.

RESULTS

From 1,089 citations, 12 RCTs with 581 patients having prophylactic mesh placement and 671 patients not having prophylactic mesh placement met inclusion criteria. Incidence of parastomal hernia was significantly reduced in patients receiving prophylactic mesh (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, p = 0.0003, I² = 74%). Results were no longer significantly different when only studies conducted in the last 5 years were analyzed (p = 0.10). There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity, postoperative mortality, colostomy-specific morbidity, or length of stay between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a significant reduction in the risk of parastomal hernia with the use of prophylactic mesh at the time of end colostomy formation, despite recent evidence suggesting no difference. Further contemporary trials with the application of modern surgical technology are required.

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.

Extraperitonealization of ileal conduit reduces parastomal hernia after cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion

OBJECTIVE

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication of ileal conduit diversion after radical cystectomy. Novel surgical techniques for preventing PSH formation are needed. We aimed to evaluate surgical technique of extraperitonealizing the ileal conduit (modified ileal conduit) for preventing PSH.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 375 consecutive patients who underwent ileal conduit after cystectomy at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between January 1, 2000 and June 31, 2019 was conducted. 214 patients had modified ileal conduit diversion and 161 patients conventional ileal conduit (Bricker) diversion. The demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of patients in the 2 groups were compared using the t test and Chi square test. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to predict the risk of PSH formation.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were comparable in regard to all demographic and clinicopathologic variables. The incidence of PSH diagnosed by CT scan was 7.5% in the modified group and 21.1% in the conventional group (P < 0.001). High BMI and history of prior abdominal surgery was identified by univariable analysis as risk factors of PSH formation. Multivariable analyses revealed that technique of extraperitonealizing ileal conduit significantly reduced incidence of PSH in patients with or without risk factors of PSH formation (OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.54, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Technique of extraperitonealizing ileal conduit appeared to be effective in reducing PSH formation after ileal conduit diversion.

Parastomal hernia after radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion: a narrative review

Radical cystectomy (RC) with ileal conduit urinary diversion has become a common surgical procedure. Stomal complications and particularly parastomal hernia (PH) are the most frequent complications and causes of reintervention after RC with ileal conduit urinary diversion. PH is usually asymptomatic. When PH increases in size and becomes symptomatic, it clearly impairs patients' quality of life in terms of physical limitation, mental distress and social interaction. The aim of this article was to review the current knowledge on PH after RC with ileal conduit urinary diversion, regarding its natural history, risk factors, prevention and surgical management. There is no strong recommendation on the ideal surgical technique for repair of PH after RC, but laparoscopic Sugarbaker or Sandwich techniques with non-absorbable meshes are emerging as the preferred modern means of PH repair. Techniques for prevention and repair of PH after RC need to be specifically evaluated in future prospective studies.

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.

Prophylactic mesh placement at index permanent end colostomy creation to prevent parastomal hernia-an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate persists regarding the efficacy of prophylactic mesh insertion (PMI) at index permanent stoma creation to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia (PSH). This meta-analysis aimed to appraise all the latest evidence from newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PMI for PSH prevention.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles from inception until November 2020. All RCTs that reported on PMI at end colostomy creation with ≥ 12 months follow-up were included. The primary objective was the rate of clinical and radiological PSH while secondary objectives included number of PSH requiring repair and stoma (or mesh)-related complications. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates. Sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included capturing 1097 patients. The mean (SD) age was 67.9 (±9.4) years. On random effects analysis, prophylactic mesh appeared to reduce the rate of both clinical (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.61, p = 0.002) and radiological (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.65, p = 0.0002) PSH. However, there was no difference in number of PSH requiring repair or stoma-related complications. On sensitivity analysis, when focusing on low-risk of bias studies, the benefit of prophylactic mesh in the retrorectus space was lost for both clinical (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.51, p = 0.89) and radiological PSH (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.18, p = 0.20).

CONCLUSION

PMI may reduce the rate of subsequent PSH. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings and to establish the optimal mesh position and shape before definite recommendations can be made.

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.

Parastomal Hernia: A Retrospective Nationwide Cohort Study Comparing Different Techniques with Long-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia repair is a complex surgical procedure with high recurrence and complication rates. This retrospective nationwide cohort study presents the results of different parastomal hernia repair techniques in Finland.

METHODS

All patients who underwent a primary end ostomy parastomal hernia repair in the nine participating hospitals during 2007-2017 were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were complications and re-operation rate.

RESULTS

In total, 235 primary elective parastomal hernia repairs were performed in five university hospitals and four central hospitals in Finland during 2007-2017. The major techniques used were the Sugarbaker (38.8%), keyhole (16.3%), and sandwich techniques (15.4%). In addition, a specific intra-abdominal keyhole technique with a funnel-shaped mesh was utilized in 8.3% of the techniques; other parastomal hernia repair techniques were used in 21.3% of the cases. The median follow-up time was 39.0 months (0-146, SD 35.3). The recurrence rates after the keyhole, Sugarbaker, sandwich, specific funnel-shaped mesh, and other techniques were 35.9%, 21.5%, 13.5%, 15%, and 35.3%, respectively. The overall re-operation rate was 20.4%, while complications occurred in 26.3% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The recurrence rate after parastomal hernia repair is unacceptable in this nationwide cohort study. As PSH repair volumes are low, further multinational, randomized controlled trials and hernia registry data are needed to improve the results.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Intestinal Ostomy

BACKGROUND

About 100 000 ostomy carriers are estimated to live in Germany today. The creation of an ostomy represents a major life event that can be associated with impaired quality of life. Optimal ostomy creation and proper ostomy care are crucially important determinants of the success of treatment and of the patients' quality of life.

METHODS

This article is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, GoogleScholar, and Scopus, and on the authors' experience.

RESULTS

Intestinal stomata can be created using either the small or the large bowel. More than 75% of all stomata are placed as part of the treatment of colorectal cancer. The incidence of stoma-related complications is reported to be 10-70%. Skin irritation, erosion, and ulceration are the most common early complications, with a combined incidence of 25-34%, while stoma prolapse is the most common late complication, with an incidence of 8-75%. Most early complications can be managed conservatively, while most late complications require surgical revision. In 19% of cases, an ostomy that was initially planned to be temporary becomes permanent. Inappropriate stoma location and inadequate ostomy care are the most common causes of early complications. Both surgical and patient-related factors influence late complications.

CONCLUSION

Every step from the planning of a stoma to its postoperative care should be discussed with the patient in detail. Preoperative marking is essential for an optimal stoma site. Optimal patient management with the involvement of an ostomy nurse increases ostomy acceptance, reduces ostomy-related complications, and improves the quality of life of ostomy carriers.

Decreased collagen type III synthesis in skin fibroblasts is associated with parastomal hernia following colostomy

Parastomal hernia (PH) is a common complication following stoma formation. Abnormal collagen synthesis has been suggested to be involved in PH. The aim of the present study is to explore the effect and mechanism of the collagen synthesis on PH. Data from 157 patients with rectal cancer who received permanent colostomy were retrospectively collected and analyzed to identify the risk factors for PH. Primary culture of skin fibroblasts from patients with or without PH were performed. Cell viability, migration and invasion levels were detected by Cell Counting Kit‑8, and wound healing and Transwell assays, respectively. Reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction and western blot analysis assays were performed to measure the gene and protein expression levels, respectively. The risk factors of sex, body mass index, aperture size and collagen expression were closely associated with the occurrence of PH. α1 (III) procollagen expression levels were significantly increased in patients with PH, while no marked difference in α1 (I) procollagen mRNA expression levels were observed in patients with or without PH. The viability and motility of fibroblasts from the patients with hernia were suppressed. The expression levels of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)‑2 and MMP‑9 were decreased while the levels of collagen III and metalloproteinase inhibitor 1 (TIMP‑1) were increased in the fibroblasts from the patients with PH. Silencing TIMP‑1 expression promoted fibroblast migration and invasion and reversed the patterns of MMP‑2, MMP‑9 and collagen III expression in fibroblasts from the patients with PH. Decreased collagen III may inhibit the development of PH, potentially through decreases in TIMP‑1 expression. Therefore, the results from the present study may provide a novel target for PH therapy.

Prophylactic mesh placement to avoid incisional hernias after stoma reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To provide an overview of the available literature on prevention of incisional hernias after stoma reversal, with the use of prophylactic meshes.

Methods

A literature search of Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Search terms for stoma, enterostomy, mesh, prophylaxis and hernia were used. Search was updated to December 31th 2018. No time limitations were used, while English, Geman, Dutch and French were used as language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia formation after stoma reversal. Secondary outcomes were mesh-related complications. Data on study design, sample size, patient characteristics, stoma and mesh characteristics, duration of follow-up and outcomes were extracted from the included articles.

Results

A number of 241 articles were identified and three studies with 536 patients were included. A prophylactic mesh was placed in 168 patients to prevent incisional hernias after stoma reversal. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 21 months. The risk of incisional hernia in case of prophylactic mesh placement was significantly lower in comparison to no mesh placement (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04–0.27, p < 0.001, I² = 0%, CI 0–91.40%). No differences in surgical site infections were detected between the groups.

Conclusions

The use of a prophylactic mesh seems to reduce the risk on incisional hernias after stoma reversal and therefore mesh reinforcement should be considered after stoma reversal.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10029-019-01996-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ostomy Complications in Crohn's Disease

Ostomy creation is a routine surgical procedure that has earned its place high in the surgeon's armamentarium in dealing with challenging situations. However, it is not without its complications. In this article, we review the common complications including parastomal hernia, prolapse, mucocutaneous junction separation with ischemia and stenosis, peristomal skin conditions, and infections. Additionally, we review conditions that arise in association with underlying Crohn's disease, such as peristomal inflammation, fistula formation, and pyoderma gangrenosum.

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.

Prophylactic Mesh for Hernia Prevention: Has the Time Arrived?

Incisional and parastomal hernias continue to be vexing problems for patients and surgeons. Risk factors are generally patient-related and/or technical in nature, and in some cases, can be altered, resulting in improved outcomes. Improved fascial closure techniques can only partly reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation. Even under optimal circumstances, using time tested closure techniques and materials, the rate remains high, due primarily to factors that are not modifiable or are unidentifiable. In such cases, there may be a beneficial role for prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA), wherein mesh is implanted at the time of initial surgery or stoma formation. Several high-risk groups that might benefit from PMA have been identified, including patients undergoing open abdominal aneurysm repair or colorectal procedures, obese patients, and patients requiring creation of permanent gastrointestinal or urological stomas. Although the initial results of PMA are promising, the benefits of this strategy must be weighed against potential risks. Outcome measures to assess efficacy should include not only hernia recurrence but also quality of life, surgical-site occurrences, and cost. Further studies are warranted to predict which specific patient populations might benefit most from PMA and to identify ideal mesh materials as well as preferred implantation sites and methods of mesh fixation.

Simultaneous stoma reinforcement and perineal reconstruction with biological mesh - A multicentre prospective observational study

Introduction

The optimal method for perineal reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (elAPE) for low rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to assess whether simultaneous perineal reconstruction and parastomal reinforcement with Strattice™ Reconstructive Tissue Matrix after elAPE could prevent hernia formation.

Methods

In this prospective, multicentre, observational, non-comparative study of consecutive patients undergoing elAPE for low rectal cancer underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ mesh. All patients underwent long course chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery and had excision of the coccyx. Patients were assessed for perineal wound healing at 7 day, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, perineal and parastomal hernia defects on clinical and radiological assessment at 1 year following surgery.

Results

19 patients (median age = 67 years, median BMI = 26, M:F = 11:8) were entered the study. 10 (52.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic elAPE. The median length of post-operative stay was 9 days. Complete wound healing was observed for 8(42%) patients at 1 month, 12(63%) at 3 months, and 19(100%) patients at 12 months. Median time for radiological and clinical assessment for hernias was 12 months. No perineal hernia was detected in 17 patients following CT assessment. Dynamic MRI was undertaken in 11 patients at 12 months and all showed no evidence of perineal hernia. 3 (16%) patients had a parastomal hernia detected radiologically. No mesh was removed during the 12 months follow up period.

Conclusion

Perineal and parastomal reconstruction with biological mesh is a feasible approach for parastomal and perineal hernia prevention after laparoscopic and open elAPE.

•

In this case series, consecutive patients underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ biological mesh.

•

Simultaneous perineal and parastomal reconstruction with Strattice™ mesh is an effective method of hernia prevention after elAPE.

•

High quality prospective RCTs and national/international collaborative audits are required to compare this technique with others for perineal reconstruction.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease

AIM

There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

Surgeons who are members of the ACPGBI with a recognised interest in IBD were invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of surgical care for IBD have been included along with 157 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of IBD and will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery.

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.

Outcome of surgery for recurrent anal cancer: results from a tertiary referral centre

AIM

Chemoradiotherapy remains the first line of treatment for anal cancer with surgery reserved for cancer recurrence or persistence. The low incidence of anal cancer means that the numbers undergoing surgery is small with centralization for excision to regional cancer centres. We present our experience of abdominal perineal excision, with reconstruction of the perineal defect (APERR), within a tertiary centre.

METHOD

Over a 15-year period, data were collected retrospectively from notes of patients who underwent an APERR. The aim was to look at disease-free and overall survival and complications associated with flap reconstruction.

RESULTS

In the study period, 29 patients [median age = 62 (range: 42-81; interquartile range: 54-68) years] underwent APERR. Median follow-up was 77 (4-200) months. Thirteen patients died during follow-up; eight from their disease, with a median survival time of 16 (4-63) months. Five-year survival was 67%. Nine (31%) patients had recurrence during the follow up period; this was local (n = 2), regional (n = 4), distant (n = 2) or a combination (n = 1). Sixteen (55%) patients developed 24 complications, including nine (31%) flap complications and 10 (34%) parastomal hernias. Flap complications were flap failure (n = 1) requiring direct closure, flap dehiscence (n = 2), necrosis of flap tip (n = 1), wound infection (n = 4) and a bulky flap (n = 1) requiring liposuction.

CONCLUSION

APERR of anal cancer is a feasible technique with excellent oncological treatment and acceptable long-term complications, although a higher than expected rate of parastomal hernia was noted.

Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer in the Twenty-First Century: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Management of low rectal cancer continues to be a challenge, and decision making regarding the need for an abdominoperineal resection (APR) in patients with low-lying tumors is complicated. Furthermore, choices need to be made regarding need for modification of the surgical approach based on tumor anatomy and patient goals.

DISCUSSION

In this article, we address patient selection, preoperative planning, and intraoperative technique required to perform the three types of abdominoperineal resections for rectal cancer: extrasphincteric, extralevator, and intersphincteric. Attention is paid not only to traditional oncologic outcomes such as recurrence and survival but also to patient-reported outcomes and quality of life.

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.

The modified laparoscopic keyhole parastomal hernia repair with in situ re-ostomy has low recurrence rate

PURPOSE

This study aimed to present a modified laparoscopic keyhole parastomal hernia repair technique with in situ re-ostomy and show its safety and feasibility at a mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

The technique begins with adhesiolysis during laparoscopy. An annular incision is made between the skin and stomal mucosa. Then, after all adhesions of the stomal bowel and its mesentery are separated from the hernial sac, the stomal bowel is delivered through the keyhole mesh. The mesh is then stitched to the stomal bowel and placed intraperitoneally. The hernial ring is narrowed, and the mesh is further stitched to the hernial ring and stomal tube. After the mesh is fixed, the redundant stomal bowel is shortened, and a new in situ stoma is matured in the conventional way.

RESULTS

Altogether, 65 consecutive patients underwent successful hernia repair via a modified laparoscopic keyhole with in situ re-ostomy. Two of the patients had recurrent parastomal hernias. No mortalities occurred during the perioperative period. Morbidities included two cases of seroma and three of ileus, all of which were cured with conservative treatment. In addition, one case of intestinal perforation was rescued by intestinal resection and enteroenterostomy. Median follow-up was 29 months (range 3-60 months). No complications of mesh-related infection or patch erosion were noted during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Modified laparoscopic keyhole parastomal hernia repair with in situ re-ostomy is a safe procedure with a low recurrence rate at the mid-term follow-up.

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.

Incidence and risk factors for parastomal bulging in patients with ileostomy or colostomy: a register-based study using data from the Danish Stoma Database Capital Region

AIM

The aim was to investigate the incidence and risk factors for parastomal bulging, a clinically important complication, in patients with an ileostomy or colostomy.

METHOD

The Danish Stoma Database Capital Region prospectively collects data on patients with a stoma up to a year after surgery. Stoma care nurses clinically assessed the main outcome, parastomal bulging. We linked data from the Stoma Database to data from the Danish Anaesthesia Database. Cumulative incidence of parastomal bulging over the first year was calculated with death and stoma reversal as competing risks. Risk factors were investigated using an exploratory approach.

RESULTS

In a study population of 5019, the cumulative incidence (with competing risks) of parastomal bulging was 36.2% at 400 days after surgery. Age, colostomy, male gender, alcohol consumption and laparoscopy were associated with an increased risk of parastomal bulging. Compared with cancer, inflammatory bowel disease was associated with a lower risk of parastomal bulging, and diverticulitis was associated with a higher risk. Peristomal mesh and stomas placed through a separate incision were associated with a reduction in risk. There was neither increased nor decreased risk of parastomal bulging for body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, smoking status, emergency surgery and preoperative stoma site marking.

CONCLUSION

Parastomal bulging is a common complication affecting one in three patients within 1 year of surgery. Along with previous findings, there is now considerable evidence for age and colostomy as being risk factors for parastomal bulging.

Parastomal hernia - current knowledge and treatment

Intestinal stoma creation is one of the most common surgical procedures. The most common long-term complication following stoma creation is parastomal hernia, which according to some authors is practically unavoidable. Statistical differences of its occurrence are mainly due to patient observation time and evaluation criteria. Consequently, primary prevention methods such as placement of prosthetic mesh and newly developed minimally invasive methods of stoma creation are used. It seems that in the light of evidence-based medicine, the best way to treat parastomal hernia is the one that the surgeon undertaking therapy is the most experienced in and is suited to the individuality of each patient, his condition and comorbidities. As a general rule, reinforcing the abdominal wall with a prosthetic mesh is the treatment of choice, with a low rate of complications and relapses over a long period of time. The current trend is to use lightweight, large pore meshes.

Preventing parastomal hernia with modified stapled mesh stoma reinforcement technique (SMART) in patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer: a case-control study

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia is a frequent complication of an abdominal wall stoma. Surgical repairs have high complication and recurrence rates. Several different techniques have been suggested to prevent parastomal hernia during stoma creation. The aim of the present case-control study was to evaluate the efficacy of modified Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) for prevention of parastomal hernia compared with conventional colostomy formation in patients who underwent open or laparoscopic rectal resection and end colostomy for cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between January 2014 and May 2016, all consecutive patients who underwent open or laparoscopic resection and end colostomy for primary or recurrent rectal cancer were identified from a prospectively collected database. Since January 2014, one surgeon in our team has routinely offered modified SMART procedure to all patients who are candidates for permanent terminal colostomy. In the SMART group patients, while creating an end colostomy, we placed a standard polypropylene mesh in the retromuscular position, fixed and cut the mesh by firing a 31- or 33-mm-diameter circular stapler and constructed the stoma. In the control group, a stoma was created conventionally by a longitudinal or transverse incision of the rectus abdominis sheath sufficiently large for the colon to pass through.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients underwent parastomal hernia prophylaxis with modified SMART and 38 patients underwent end-colostomy formation without prophylaxis (control group). Groups were similar in terms of age, sex and underlying conditions predisposing to herniation. Median follow-up time is 27 (range 12-41) months. Nineteen patients (28.4%) developed parastomal herniation. In the SMART group, 4 patients (13.8%) developed parastomal herniation which is significantly lower than the control group in which 15 patients (39.5%) developed parastomal herniation (p = 0.029). We did not observe mesh infection, stenosis, erosion or fistulation in the SMART group. One patient in the control group underwent surgical correction of stoma stricture, another patient underwent surgery for stoma prolapse and four patients underwent surgery for parastomal herniation.

CONCLUSION

New systemic reviews and meta-analysis support parastomal hernia prevention with the use of a prophylactic mesh. Until more evidence is available, prophylactic mesh should be routinely offered to all patients undergoing permanent stoma formation. SMART is easy to use, safe and effective for paracolostomy hernia prophylaxis.