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

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 ).

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

PURPOSE

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

METHOD

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Parietal complications after cystectomy: Incisional and parastomal hernia, epidemiology and risk factors

INTRODUCTION

Incisional and parastomal hernias are frequent complications after cystectomy. The aim of our study was to define their incidence, identify risk factors related to the patient and the surgical technique, and identify means of prevention.

MATERIAL

This was a multicenter, retrospective study, analyzing clinical and radiological data from 521 patients operated on for cystectomy between January 2010 and December 2020.

RESULTS

In total, 521 patients, 471 men and 50 women, mean age 68.8years, were included. Thirty-one patients (6.6%) presented with an evisceration. Risk factors were a history of evisceration (OR: 14.1; 95% CI: [3-66]; P=0.0008), COPD (OR: 3.5; 95% CI: [1.3-9 .4]; P=0.0119), ischemic heart disease (OR: 4; 95% CI: [1. 6-10]; P=0.0036), and split-stitch closure (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: [1.065-8.9]; P=0.0493). Fifty-one patients (9.9%) presented with an incisional hernia. Risk factors were a history of COPD (OR: 4, 95% CI: [2.1-7.6]; P<0.001) and postoperative pulmonary infection (OR: 5.3; 95% CI: [1.05-26.4]; P=0.0079). Seventy-nine patients (15.28%) had a parastomal hernia. Overweight was a risk factor (OR: 2.3; 95% CI: [1.3-4.5]; P=0.0073).

CONCLUSION

Patients who are overweight or have pulmonary comorbidities are at greater risk of developing parietal complications after cystectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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 Following Ileal Conduit: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Health-Related Quality of Life

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to measure the incidence of parastomal hernia (PH) after radical cystectomy and ileal conduit. Secondary aims were the identification of risk factors for PH and to compare the health-related quality of life (QOL) between patients with and without PH.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of medical records combined with cross-sectional administration of the QOL instrument and telephone follow-up.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

The study sample comprised 219 patients who underwent radical cystectomy and ileal conduit for urothelial cancer between February 2014 and December 2018. The study setting was Peking University First Hospital (Beijing, China).

METHODS

Demographic and pertinent clinical data, including development of PH, were gathered via the retrospective review of medical records. Participants were also asked to complete the traditional Chinese language version of the City of Hope Quality of Life-Ostomy Questionnaire (C-COH). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify the effect of PH on C-COH scores. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for PH development.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 34 months (IQR = 21-48), 43 of 219 (19.63%) patients had developed a PH. A body mass index (BMI) indicating overweight (OR = 3.548; 95% CI, 1.562-8.061; P = .002), a prior history of hernia (OR = 5.147; 95% CI, 1.195-22.159; P = .028), and chronic high abdominal pressure postdischarge (CHAP-pd) (OR = 3.197; 95% CI, 1.445-7.075; P = .004) were predictors of PH after operation. There was no significant difference between C-COH scores of patients with or without PH. No significant differences were found when participants with PH were compared to those without PH on 4 factors of the C-COH: physical scores (β= .347, P = .110), psychological scores (β= .316, P = .070), spiritual scores (β=-.125, P = .714), and social scores (β= .054, P = .833).

CONCLUSION

Parastomal hernia is prevalent in patients undergoing radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion. Overweight, hernia history, and CHAP-pd were predictors of PH development. No significant differences in QOL were found when patients with PH were compared to those without PH.

Prophylactic mesh does not prevent parastomal hernia in long-term: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses evaluating parastomal hernia prevention with mesh placement during end colostomy formation have reported contradictory results. This review aimed to assess the efficacy of this strategy in long-term follow-up according to the latest available data.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. Randomized clinical trials were included if they compared mesh with no mesh during initial end colostomy creation in adult patients to prevent parastomal hernia with a follow-up longer than 2 years. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate parastomal hernia incidence (primary outcome), parastomal hernia repair rate, and mortality. Subgroup analysis included surgical approach and mesh position, and trial sequential analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Eight randomized clinical trials involving 537 patients met the inclusion criteria. Based on long-term follow-up, the incidence of parastomal hernia was not reduced when a prophylactic mesh was placed (relative risk = 0.68 [95% confidence interval:0.46-1.02]; I2 = 81%, P =.06). The parastomal hernia repair rate was low; however, no difference was found between the groups (relative risk = 0.90 [95% confidence interval:0.51-1.56]; I2 = 0%; P = .70), and no difference was detected between the groups when mortality was assessed (relative risk = 1.03 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.39]; I2 = 21%; P = .83). Subgroup analyses did not show differences according to the surgical approach or mesh position used. Regarding trial sequential analysis, an optimal information size was not achieved.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation does not prevent parastomal hernia in the long term. The parastomal hernia repair rate and mortality rate did not vary between the included groups. Heterogeneity among the included randomized clinical trials might restrict the reliability of the results.

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.

Prophylactic Mesh Placement During Formation of an End-colostomy: Long-term Randomized Controlled Trial on Effectiveness and Safety

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine if prophylactic mesh placement is an effective, safe, and cost-effective procedure to prevent parastomal hernia (PSH) formation in the long term.

BACKGROUND

A PSH is the most frequent complication after stoma formation. Prophylactic placement of a mesh has been suggested to prevent PSH, but long-term evidence to support this approach is scarce.

METHODS

In this multicentre superiority trial patients undergoing the formation of a permanent colostomy were randomly assigned to either retromuscular polypropylene mesh reinforcement or conventional colostomy formation. Primary endpoint was the incidence of a PSH after 5 years. Secondary endpoints were morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were randomly assigned to the mesh group (n = 72) or nonmesh group (n = 78). For the long-term follow-up, 113 patients were analyzed, and 37 patients were lost to follow-up. After a median follow-up of 60 months (interquartile range: 48.6-64.4), 49 patients developed a PSH, 20 (27.8%) in the mesh group and 29 (37.2%) in the nonmesh group ( P = 0.22; RD: -9.4%; 95% CI: -24, 5.5). The cost related to the meshing strategy was € 2.239 lower than the nonmesh strategy (95% CI: 491.18, 3985.49), and quality-adjusted life years did not differ significantly between groups ( P = 0.959; 95% CI: -0.066, 0.070).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement during the formation of an end-colostomy is a safe procedure but does not reduce the incidence of PSH after 5 years of follow-up. It does, however, delay the onset of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, and seems to be cost-effective.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

Prophylactic Mesh Placement With Ileal Conduit: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of mesh placement in patients undergoing ileal conduit urinary diversion for bladder cancer. Long-term studies have shown that parastomal hernias (PSH) occur in more than half of all stomas. Mesh prophylaxis has been shown to reduce PSH after end-colostomy and ileal conduits. However, no cost-effectiveness studies on mesh prophylaxis have been performed for this population.

METHODS

We created a Markov model incorporating the costs and effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis for patients undergoing radical cystectomy and ileal conduit construction. Costs were obtained from the literature and adjusted to 2022 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of our model.

RESULTS

In stage I-IV bladder cancer, prophylactic mesh placement was costlier, but more effective in providing quality of life compared with no mesh placement at index surgery. Average incremental cost between the 2 strategies across all stages was an additional $897 when mesh was utilized. Incremental effectiveness averaged 0.49 additional QALY across all stages. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2114.71/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that benefit of mesh placement was sensitive to the probability of mesh infection.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing ileal conduit urinary diversion for bladder cancer, mesh prophylaxis at the time of radical cystectomy is an overall cost-effective strategy in preventing PSH for patients presenting with all stages of bladder cancer.

Parastomal hernia prevention with permanent mesh in end colostomy: failure with late follow-up of cohorts in three randomized trials

PURPOSE

Short-term results have been reported regarding parastomal hernia (PH) prevention with a permanent mesh. Long-term results are scarce. The objective was to assess the long-term PH occurrence after a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh.

METHODS

Long-term data of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected. The primary outcome was the detection of PH based exclusively on a radiological diagnosis by computed tomography (CT) performed during the long-term follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for the comparison of time to diagnosis of PH according to the presence of mesh vs. no-mesh and the technique of mesh insertion: open retromuscular, laparoscopic keyhole, and laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker.

RESULTS

We studied 121 patients (87 men, median age 70 years), 82 (67.8%) of which developed a PH. The median overall length of follow-up was 48.5 months [interquartile range (IQR) 14.4-104.9], with a median time until PH diagnosis of 17.7 months (IQR 9.3-49.0). The survival analysis did not show significant differences in the time to development of a PH according to the presence or absence of a prophylactic mesh neither in the overall study population (log-rank, P = 0.094) nor in the groups of each technique of mesh insertion, although according to the surgical technique, a higher reduction in the appearance of PH for the open retromuscular technique was found (log-rank, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the long-term follow-up placement of a non-absorbable synthetic prophylactic mesh in the context of an elective end colostomy does not seem effective for preventing PH.

No Reduction in Parastomal Hernia Rate 3 Years After Stoma Construction With Prophylactic Mesh: Three-year Follow-up Results From STOMAMESH-A Multicenter Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to compare rates of parastomal hernia (PSH) 3 years after stoma construction with prophylactic mesh or no mesh. A secondary objective was to compare complications requiring reintervention within 3 years.

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that a prophylactic mesh does not reduce the rate of PSH contrary to older studies. Long-term data on efficacy and safety is however scarce.

METHODS

A randomized controlled double-blind multicenter trial. Patients planned for permanent end colostomy were randomized to either prophylactic mesh in the retromuscular position around the stoma site or no mesh. They were evaluated for PSH clinically and with computed tomography (CT) 3 years after stoma construction. Medical records of all patients included were also reviewed at 3 years to detect any abdominal or abdominal wall surgery during that period.

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients were randomized. At 3 years, 154 patients were available for clinical evaluation and 137 underwent a CT scan. No significant difference in PSH rates was seen between the treatment allocation arms (clinical: P =0.829 and CT: P =0.761, respectively), nor was there a significant difference in the number of reinterventions, but 2 patients had their mesh removed at emergency surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh does not reduce the rate of PSH and cannot be recommended for routine use.

Biologic vs Synthetic Mesh for Parastomal Hernia Repair: Post Hoc Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernias are often repaired with mesh to reduce recurrences, but the presence of an ostomy increases the wound class from clean to clean-contaminated/contaminated and makes the choice of mesh more controversial than in a strictly clean case. We aimed to compare the outcomes of biologic and synthetic mesh for parastomal hernia repair.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a post hoc analysis of parastomal hernia repairs in a randomized trial comparing biologic and synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. Outcomes included rates of surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), reoperations, stoma/mesh-related adverse events, parastomal hernia recurrence rates (clinical, patient-reported, and radiographic) at 2 years, quality of life (EQ-5D, EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale, and Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey), and hospital costs up to 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients underwent parastomal hernia repair (57 biologic (53%) and 51 synthetic (47%)). Demographic and hernia characteristics were similar between the two groups. No significant differences in SSOPI rates or reoperations were observed between mesh types. Four mesh erosions into an ostomy requiring reoperations (2 biologic vs 2 synthetic) occurred. At 2 years, parastomal hernia recurrence rates were similar for biologic and synthetic mesh (17 (29.8%) vs 13 (25.5%), respectively; P=.77). Overall and hernia-related quality of life improved from baseline and were similar between the two groups at 2 years. Median total hospital cost and median mesh cost were higher for biologic compared to synthetic mesh.

CONCLUSION

Biologic and synthetic mesh have similar wound morbidity, reoperations, 2-year hernia recurrence rates, and quality of life in parastomal hernia repairs. Cost should be considered in mesh choice for parastomal hernia repairs.

Prophylactic Effect of Simultaneous Placement of Mesh on Incidence of Parastomal Hernia After Miles' Surgical Resection of Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

To assess the prophylactic effect of simultaneous placement of mesh and the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) after abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study included real-world data of 56 surgically resected patients with colorectal cancer who were consecutively assigned to two groups: control (no mesh, n = 32) and experimental (received mesh, n = 24). An artificial patch was placed under the tunica vaginalis of rectus abdominis for patients in the experimental group, whereas those in the control group received routine sigmoidostomy. The median follow-up time was >20 mo. The difference in hazards function was analyzed by cox regression analysis. The Kaplan-Meir analysis was used to determine the survival curves. A P value of <0.05 was considered as significant.

RESULTS

The postoperative incidence rate of PSH was lower in the experimental (41.7%) group than in the control group (71.9%; P = 0.045). The PSH postoperative time in the experimental group was significantly delayed compared to the control group (48 mo versus 10 mo; P < 0.001). The risk of progression from H1 to H2 was less in the experimental group compared to the control group (49.28% versus 60.86%; P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement significantly prolonged postoperative time for the recurrence of PSH. The incidence of recurrence of H2 (severe PSH) requiring secondary surgical repair was also reduced.

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.

Stoma creation is associated with a low incidence of midline incisional hernia after colorectal surgery: the "fighting over the fascia" theory concerning the incision and stoma hole

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia (PH) develops more frequently than incisional hernia (IH) after colorectal surgery with stoma. This study evaluated our hypothesis that inward traction of the fascia when closing a midline incision widens the stoma hole and increases the incidence of PH.

METHODS

A total of 795 patients who underwent colorectal resection between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The risk classification was constructed from IH risk factors extracted from the non-stoma group. Then, the classification was extrapolated to the stoma group for predicting midline IH and PH.

RESULTS

The incidence of IH was 5.3% in the stoma group and 12.5% in the non-stoma group (p = 0.005). PH developed in 19.6% of 97 patients with permanent stoma. The risk classification was able to predict PH without a significant difference but was well balanced in patients with permanent stoma; however, it failed to predict IH in the stoma group.

CONCLUSION

The risk classification constructed from the non-stoma group was useful for predicting not midline IH but PH, suggesting that the stoma site was the most vulnerable for herniation. The "fighting over the fascia" theory between the midline incision and stoma hole may explain the causal relationship between the midline IH and PH.

Controversies in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

This article discuses current controversies in abdominal wall reconstruction, including the standardization of outcome reporting, mesh selection, the utility of robotic surgery in ventral hernia repair, and role for prophylactic stoma mesh at the time of permanent end colostomy formation. The current state of the literature pertaining to these topics is reviewed in detail.

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.

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

INTERPRETATIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Stoma-related complications: a report from the Stoma-Const randomized controlled trial

AIM

The impact of construction techniques on the development of stoma complications is partly undiscovered. The aim of this paper was to report and analyse the impact of the three surgical techniques in a randomized controlled trial Stoma-Const on stoma-related complications as well as identifying risk factors and patient-reported stoma function as a planned secondary analysis.

METHODS

This was a randomized, multicenter trial where all patients scheduled to receive an end colostomy were invited to participate. Patients were randomized to one of three techniques for stoma construction; cruciate fascial incision, circular incision or prophylactic mesh. Stoma complications were assessed by a surgeon and stoma care nurses within 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine patients were randomized. Patient demographics were similar in all three groups. Data on stoma-related complications were available for analysis in 201 patients. A total of 127 patients (63%) developed some type of stoma complication within 1 year after surgery. The risk ratio (95% CI) for stoma complications was 0.93 (0.73; 1.2) between cruciate vs. circular incision groups and 1.02 (0.78; 1.34) between cruciate vs. mesh groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding parastomal hernia rate and no risk factors could be identified.

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial confirmed a high prevalence of stoma-related complications but could not identify an impact of surgical technique or identify modifiable risk factors for stoma-related complications.

Methods of Colostomy Construction: No Effect on Parastomal Hernia Rate: Results from Stoma-const-A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this trial was to compare the parastomal hernia rates 1 year after the construction of an end colostomy by 3 surgical techniques: cruciate incision, circular incision in the fascia and using prophylactic mesh. Secondary objectives were evaluation of postoperative complications, readmissions/reoperations, and risk factors for parastomal hernia.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Colostomy construction techniques have been explored with the aim to improve function and reduce stoma complications, but parastomal herniation is frequent with an incidence of approximately 50%.

METHODS

A randomized, multicenter trial was performed in 3 hospitals in Sweden and Denmark; all patients scheduled to receive an end colostomy were asked to participate. Parastomal hernia within 12 months was determined by computed tomography of the abdomen in prone position and by clinical assessment. Complications, readmissions, reoperations, and risk factors were also assessed.

RESULTS

Two hundred nine patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 arms of the study. Patient demographics were similar in all 3 groups. Assessment of parastomal hernia was possible in 185 patients. The risk ratio (95% confidence interval) for parastomal hernia was 1.25 (0.83; 1.88), and 1.22 (0.81; 1.84) between cruciate versus circular and cruciate versus mesh groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to parastomal hernia rate. Age and body mass index were found to be associated with development of a parastomal hernia.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in the rates of parastomal hernia within 12 months of index surgery between the 3 surgical techniques of colostomy construction.

The Role of Mesh Implants in Surgical Treatment of Parastomal Hernia

A parastomal hernia is a common complication following stoma surgery. Due to the large number of hernial relapses and other complications, such as infections, adhesion to the intestines, or the formation of adhesions, the treatment of hernias is still a surgical challenge. The current standard for the preventive and causal treatment of parastomal hernias is to perform a procedure with the use of a mesh implant. Researchers are currently focusing on the analysis of many relevant options, including the type of mesh (synthetic, composite, or biological), the available surgical techniques (Sugarbaker’s, “keyhole”, or “sandwich”), the surgical approach used (open or laparoscopic), and the implant position (onlay, sublay, or intraperitoneal onlay mesh). Current surface modification methods and combinations of different materials are actively explored areas for the creation of biocompatible mesh implants with different properties on the visceral and parietal peritoneal side. It has been shown that placing the implant in the sublay and intraperitoneal onlay mesh positions and the use of a specially developed implant with a 3D structure are associated with a lower frequency of recurrences. It has been shown that the prophylactic use of a mesh during stoma formation significantly reduces the incidence of parastomal hernias and is becoming a standard method in medical practice.

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.

Do North American colorectal surgeons use mesh to prevent parastomal hernia? A survey of current attitudes and practice

Background

The use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy procedures has been shown to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia. However, the degree to which the practice has been adopted clinically remains unknown. We conducted a study to evaluate the current opinions and practice patterns of Canadian and US colorectal surgeons with regard to the use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy.

Methods

Between May and July 2017, we conducted an internet-based survey of colorectal surgeons in Canada and the United States (selected at random). Using a questionnaire designed and tested for this study, we assessed the rate of mesh use, types of mesh and placement techniques, and perceived barriers and facilitators associated with the practice.

Results

Forty-eight (51.6%) of 93 invited Canadian surgeons and 253 (16.6%) of 1521 invited US surgeons responded (overall response rate 18.6%). Of the 301 respondents, 32 (10.6%) were currently using mesh, 32 (10.6%) had previously used mesh, and 237 (78.7%) had never used mesh. Of 29 respondents currently using mesh, 12 (41.4%) used it only in selected patients; the majority used a sublay technique (20 [69.0%]) and biologic mesh (17 [58.6%]). Most respondents agreed that parastomal hernias are common and negatively affect quality of life; however, there remained concerns about evidence quality and the perceived risk associated with mesh among those who had never or had previously used mesh.

Conclusion

Prophylactic mesh placement remains relatively uncommon; when used, biologic mesh was the most common type. Many surgeons were not convinced of the safety or efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement.

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.

Outcomes of surgically managed recurrent parastomal hernia: the Sisyphean challenge of the hernia world

PURPOSE

The management of a recurrent (symptomatic) parastomal hernia (PSH) presents a dilemma. The aim of this study was to review the outcome of patients who underwent a recurrent PSH repair.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing recurrent PSH repairs at a single institution between 2010 and 2019. Primary outcome recorded was recurrence. Secondary outcomes recorded were 30-day post-operative complications, surgical site occurrence (SSO) incidence and to assess if EHS classification altered with each recurrence.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients underwent 59 recurrent PSH repairs during the study period. Median number of PSH repairs per patient from ostomy formation was 2 (2-8). Post-operative complications occurred following 52.5% of repairs. Recurrence rate for all recurrent PSH hernia repairs was 45.7%, with a median follow-up of 58 months (0-115). A trend was seen towards a shorter PSH recurrence-free survival in those who had at least two previous PSH repairs at the start of the study period when compared to those who had less. Recurrence was not associated with operative urgency, type of repair, mesh type or SSO occurrence. A significant decrease in recurrence was seen with retro-rectus mesh placement when compared to onlay (p = 0.003). EHS classification did not change between each recurrence in 70.8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Recurrence rates after recurrent PSH repair are high. The recurrence-free survival was worse after the second or more attempt at repair for recurrence. Further studies are warranted to explore prophylaxis, optimal repair method, and where re-recurrence occurs, the benefit of repeated surgical intervention.

Comparison of different modalities for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication following stoma formation. The incidence of PSH varies widely due to several factors including differences in diagnostic modality, observer, definition, and classification used for diagnosing PSH. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the modalities used to identify PSH.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched. Studies reporting PSH incidence rates detected by two or more different diagnostic modalities or inter-observer variation on one diagnostic modality were included. Article selection and assessment of study quality were conducted independently by two researchers using Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018112732.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (n = 2514 patients) were included. Nineteen studies compared CT to clinical examination with relative difference in incidence rates ranging from 0.64 to 3.0 (n = 1369). Overall, 79% of studies found an increase in incidence rate when using CT. Disagreement between CT and clinical examination ranged between 0 and 37.3% with pooled inter-modality agreement Kappa value of 0.64 (95% CI 0.52-0.77). Four studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography (n = 103). Compared with peroperative diagnosis, CT and ultrasonography both seemed accurate imaging modalities with a sensitivity of 83%.

CONCLUSION

CT is an accurate diagnostic modality for PSH diagnosis and increases PSH detection rates, as compared with clinical examination. Studies that specially focus on the diagnostic accuracy are needed and should aim to take patient-reported outcomes into account. A detailed description of the diagnostic approach, modality, definition, and involved observers is prerequisite for future PSH research.

Improved tissue integration of a new elastic intraperitoneal stoma mesh prosthesis

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

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.

Etiological analysis of parastomal hernia by computed tomography examination

Introduction

Parastomal hernia is a common complication after stoma formation. The definitive risk factors for parastomal hernia development remain unclear.

Aim

This study evaluated the risk factors through computed tomography (CT) scan of patients with parastomal hernia.

Material and methods

All patients who underwent an operation at our institution from January 2008 to February 2014 were included. We recorded patient-related and operation-related variables, and CT scans were checked. All the variables were analyzed with SPSS 19 to identify the risk factors for parastomal hernia formation.

Results

Of the 128 patients who underwent colostomy, 49 (38.3%) developed a parastomal hernia during a median follow-up period of 20.1 months (range: 4-84 months). Hernia development was significantly associated with the thickness of subcutaneous fat in the abdominal wall, the location of the stoma, anteroposterior diameter and horizontal diameter of the body. The defect size of the abdominal wall is another risk factor. The larger the defect size of the abdominal wall, the larger is the parastomal stoma (3.79 ±1.51 vs. 2.13 ±0.74 cm horizontally and 4.90 ±2.25 vs. 2.94 ±0.73 cm vertically, p < 0.001). The hernia contents protrude into the hernial sac through the path of the inner side more than the outer side (77.6% vs. 12.2%).

Conclusions

Our findings in Chinese patients with parastomal hernia match those from Western countries: obesity, the location of the stoma, and the defect size of the abdominal wall are significant risk factors for parastomal hernia formation. The mesenteric region is a weak area, which is a site prone to parastomal hernia, and should be protected.

Quality of life after end colostomy without mesh and with prophylactic synthetic mesh in sublay position: one-year results of the STOMAMESH trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether prophylactic mesh in a sublay position has an impact on the quality-of-life (QoL) of patients receiving an end colostomy.

METHODS

One-year follow-up of patients from the STOMAMESH trial, a randomized controlled double-blinded multicenter study. Patients were randomized to either prophylactic synthetic mesh with a cruciform incision in the center, placed in sublay position, or no prophylactic mesh. Patients attended a 1-year visit and responded to the questionnaires EORTC QLQ C-30 and CR-38. The impact of having a mesh on QoL was determined by comparing a group of patients receiving a mesh with a group without. A subgroup analysis was made depending on whether a PSH was clinically present or not.

RESULTS

Of the 232 randomized patients, 211 patients reached the 1-year clinical follow-up. The response rate of these 211 patients was 70%. No differences were seen in global QoL between the groups. Mesh patients reported significantly less stoma-related problems (p = 0.014) but more sexual problems in males (p = 0.022). When excluding patients with a clinical diagnosis of PSH, the difference in stoma-related problems remained while no significant difference was seen regarding sexual problems in males.

CONCLUSIONS

When forming an end colostomy, prophylactic synthetic mesh in a sublay position did not affect global QoL at 1-year follow-up, but stoma-related problems were fewer even in the presence of a clinically diagnosed PSH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00917995.

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.

New advances in prophylactic mesh placement in end colostomy

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

Prophylactic mesh used in ileal conduit formation following radical cystectomy: a retrospective cohort

PURPOSE

Given the difficulty of durable repairs, there is continued interest in hernia prevention. One emerging prevention technique for parastomal hernias is prophylactic mesh placement, whereby mesh is inserted during the index procedure as hernia prophylaxis. We evaluated our experience using prophylactic mesh when creating an ileal conduit.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing robotic cystectomy with ileal conduit from 6/2010 to 8/2017. Patient demographics and operative/perioperative outcomes were documented. We evaluated hernia recurrence using postoperative computed tomography scanning or physical exam. Prophylactic mesh was inserted at the operating surgeon's discretion using a synthetic resorbable or biologic mesh.

RESULTS

During the study period, 38 patients underwent robotic-assisted cystectomy with ileal conduit formation. Average patient age was 68 years, with 28 (74%) male and 35 (92%) Caucasian patients. Three patients (8%) required conversion to open, and one patient (3%) had a concomitant colorectal resection. Thirty-one (88%) patients had postoperative computed tomography scanning. Prophylactic mesh was used in 18 patients (47%) in a retrorectus position. Of these, 15 (83%) patients had synthetic resorbable mesh and 3 (17%) patients had biologic mesh. At average follow-up of 21 months, one hernia recurred (5%) in a patient without mesh placement at the time of ileal conduit. At an average follow-up of 11 months, there have been no recurrences and no mesh-related complications in the prophylactic mesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

Using prophylactic mesh in ileal conduit, creation is feasible and may decrease the parastomal hernia formation rate. Further study of using synthetic resorbable and biologic meshes for hernia prophylaxis is warranted.

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.

Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation

BACKGROUND

Parastomal herniation is a common problem following formation of a stoma after both elective and emergency abdominal surgery. Symptomatic hernias give rise to a significant amount of patient morbidity, and in some cases mortality, and therefore may necessitate surgical treatment to repair the hernial defect and/or re-site the stoma. In an effort to reduce this complication, recent research has focused on the application of a synthetic or biological mesh, inserted during stoma formation to help strengthen the abdominal wall.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate whether mesh reinforcement during stoma formation reduces the incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary objectives included the safety or potential harms or both of mesh placement in terms of stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, patient-reported symptoms/postoperative quality of life, and re-hospitalisation/ambulatory visits.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1970 to 11 January 2018), Ovid Embase (1974 to 11 January 2018), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to 11 January 2018). To identify ongoing studies, we also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 11 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of prosthetic mesh (including biological/composite mesh) placement versus a control group (no mesh) for the prevention of parastomal hernia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the literature search for potential eligibility. We obtained the full articles for all studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria and included all those that met the criteria. Any differences in opinion between review authors were resolved by consensus. We pooled study data into a meta-analysis. We assessed heterogeneity by calculation of I2 and expressed results for each variable as a risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We expressed continous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 844 participants. The primary outcome was overall incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary outcomes were rate of reoperation at 12 months, operative time, postoperative length of hospital stay, stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate. We judged the risk of bias across all domains to be low in six trials. We judged four trials to have an overall high risk of bias.The overall incidence of parastomal hernia was less in participants receiving a prophylactic mesh compared to those who had a standard ostomy formation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.66; 10 studies, 771 participants; I2 = 69%; low-quality evidence). In absolute numbers, the incidence of parastomal hernia was 22 per 100 participants (18 to 27) receiving prophylactic mesh compared to 41 per 100 participants having a standard ostomy formation.There were no differences in the need for reoperation (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.64; 9 studies, 757 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); operative time (MD -6.50 (min), 95% CI -18.24 to 5.24; 6 studies, 671 participants; low-quality evidence); postoperative length of hospital stay (MD -0.95 (days), 95% CI -2.03 to 0.70; 4 studies, 500 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or stoma-related infections (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.50; 6 studies, 472 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) between the two groups.We were unable to analyse mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate due to sparse data or because the outcome was not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane Review included 10 RCTs with a total of 844 participants. The review demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia in people who had a prophylactic synthetic mesh placed at the time of the index operation compared to a standard ostomy formation. However, our confidence in this estimate is low due to the presence of a large degree of clinical heterogeneity, as well as high variability in follow-up duration and technique of parastomal herniation detection. We found the rate of stoma-related infection to be similar in both the intervention and control groups.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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