Abdominal wall closure with prophylactic mesh in colorectal operations

Reversal of stoma with biosynthetic mesh fascial reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Temporary stoma formation remains a common part of modern-day colorectal surgical operations. At the time of reversal, a second procedure is required when the bowel is anastomosed and the musculature is closed. The rate of incisional hernia at these sites is 30%-35% with conventional suture closure. Mesh placement at this site is therefore an attractive option to reduce hernia risk, particularly as new mesh types, such as biosynthetic meshes, are available. The aim of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the use of mesh for prophylaxis of incisional hernia at stoma closure and to explore the outcome measures used by each of the included studies to establish whether they are genuinely patient-centred.

METHOD

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the published literature regarding the use of mesh at stoma site closure operations. Comprehensive literature searches of major electronic databases were performed by an information specialist. Screening of search results was undertaken using standard systematic review principles. Data from selected studies were input into an Excel file. Meta-analysis of the results of included studies was conducted using RevMan software (v.5.4). Randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT data were analysed separately.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with a total of 2008 patients were selected for inclusion, with various mesh types used. Of the included studies, one was a RCT, seven were nonrandomized comparative studies and three were case series. The meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies shows that the rate of incisional hernia was lower in the mesh reinforcement group compared with the suture closure group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12-0.37) while rates of infection and haematoma/seroma were similar between groups (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.41-1.21 and OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63-1.80, respectively). The results of the RCT were in line with those of the nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates that mesh is safe and reduces incisional hernia. However, this is not commonly adopted into current clinical practice and the literature has minimal patient-reported outcome measures. Future work should explore the reasons for such slow adoption as well as the preferences of patients in terms of outcome measures that matter most to them.

An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest.

METHODS

Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I² 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I² 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I² 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I² 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I² 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I² 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24).

CONCLUSION

Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.

[Prophylaxis of parastomal, perineal and incisional hernias in colorectal surgery]

This article gives an overview of the relevant evidence from the literature on the topic of prophylactic use of meshes to prevent incisional and parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery. In addition, based on a structured literature search the incidence of hernias in colorectal surgery over the past 5 years was analyzed. A slight majority (54%) of articles recommended the use of prophylactic mesh implantation in colorectal surgery. The prophylactic use of meshes appears to reduce the risk of hernias in colorectal surgery but is associated with a slightly increased perioperative wound infection rate. Parastomal hernias are associated with higher incidence rates compared with incisional hernias and also appear to benefit more from prophylactic mesh implantation. The evidence in the literature is still unclear regarding the use of synthetic or biological implants due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. Perineal hernias were excluded from the analysis due to the incomparability of the mainly casuistic literature. An overview is given in the discussion. The analysis of the literature and also in reflection of our own experience comes to the conclusion that the disrupted integrity of the abdominal wall due to the operation should be prophylactically reinforced with a mesh after colorectal surgery. An evidence-based recommendation is not possible based on the current state of research on implantation techniques, e.g. onlay, sublay intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) and selection of the implant.

Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed.

Results

Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123–0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462–1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78–1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64–1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846–3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD − 0.579,95% CI − 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119–0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes.

Conclusion

Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w.

Closure of stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of the closure of temporary stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Studies comparing the reversal of stoma with and without prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH), surgical site infection (SSI), operative time, seroma formation, haematoma formation, bowel obstruction, anastomosis leak, length of hospital stay (LOS) and secondary operation to repair the SSIH were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Six comparative studies reporting a total of 1683 patients who underwent closure of stoma with (n = 669) or without (n = 1014) prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Use of mesh was associated with a significantly lower risk of SSIH (OR 0.22, P = 0.003) and need for surgical intervention to repair SSIH (OR 0.32, P = 0.04) compared with no use of mesh. However, it was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD 47.78, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in SSI (OR 1.09, P = 0.59), bowel obstruction (OR 1.11, P = 0.74), seroma formation (OR 2.86, P = 0.19), anastomosis leak (OR 1.60, P = 0.15), haematoma formation (OR 1.25, P = 0.75) or LOS (MD - 0.45, P = 0.31) between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during the closure of temporary stoma may significantly reduce the risk of SSIH and surgical intervention to repair the hernia without increasing the risk of SSI or other morbidities. However, it may increase the procedure time. Future higher-quality randomised evidence is required.