Randomized controlled trial of standard closure of a stoma site vs biological mesh reinforcement: study protocol of the ROCSS trial

The utilization of an absorbable mesh after ostomy reversal does not decrease incisional hernia rates

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ostomy reversal hernias are common and can create strain on the healthcare system. There is little literature evaluating the utilization of absorbable mesh following ostomy reversal. The effect on subsequent hernia rates at our institution has not been evaluated. We examine if the addition of absorbable mesh decreases the postoperative hernia rate in our patient population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all ileostomy and colostomy reversals. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether an absorbable mesh was used at ostomy closure or not.

RESULTS

Hernia recurrence rates were lower in the group that had mesh reinforcement (8.96%) vs the group that did not receive a mesh (14.8%) though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.233).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of an absorbable biosynthetic mesh did not alter the rate of incisional hernia rates following ostomy reversal in our cohort of patients.

Hernia at the stoma site after loop ileostomy reversal

PURPOSE

To estimate the incidence of and risk factors for stoma site hernia after closure of a temporary diverting ileostomy.

METHOD

In a non-comparative cohort study, charts (n = 216) and CT-scans (n = 169) from patients who had undergone loop ileostomy closure following low anterior resection for rectal cancer 2010-2015 (mainly open surgery) at three hospitals were evaluated retrospectively. Patients without hernia diagnosis were evaluated cross-sectionally through a questionnaire (n = 158), and patients with symptoms of bulging or pain were contacted and offered a clinical examination or a CT scan including Valsalva maneuver.

RESULTS

In the chart review, five (2.3%) patients had a diagnosis of incisional hernia at the previous stoma site after 8 months (median). In 12 patients, the CT scan showed a hernia, of which 8 had not been detected previously. The questionnaire was returned by 130 (82%) patients, of which 31% had symptoms of bulging or pain. Less than one in five of patients who reported bulging were diagnosed with hernia, but the absolute majority of the radiologically diagnosed hernias reported symptoms. By combining clinical and radiological diagnosis, the cumulative incidence of hernia was 7.4% during a median follow up time of 30 months. Risk factors for stoma site hernia were male sex and higher BMI.

CONCLUSION

Hernia at the previous stoma site was underdiagnosed. Less than a third of symptomatic patients had a hernia diagnosis in routine follow up. Randomized studies are needed to evaluate if prophylactic mesh can be used to prevent hernias, especially in patients with risk factors.

Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site (ROCSS): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Closure of an abdominal stoma, a common elective operation, is associated with frequent complications; one of the commonest and impactful is incisional hernia formation. We aimed to investigate whether biological mesh (collagen tissue matrix) can safely reduce the incidence of incisional hernias at the stoma closure site.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled trial (ROCSS) done in 37 hospitals across three European countries (35 UK, one Denmark, one Netherlands), patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure were randomly assigned using a computer-based algorithm in a 1:1 ratio to either biological mesh reinforcement or closure with sutures alone (control). Training in the novel technique was standardised across hospitals. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of clinically detectable hernia 2 years after randomisation (intention to treat). A sample size of 790 patients was required to identify a 40% reduction (25% to 15%), with 90% power (15% drop-out rate). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02238964.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 28, 2012, and Nov 11, 2015, of 1286 screened patients, 790 were randomly assigned. 394 (50%) patients were randomly assigned to mesh closure and 396 (50%) to standard closure. In the mesh group, 373 (95%) of 394 patients successfully received mesh and in the control group, three patients received mesh. The clinically detectable hernia rate, the primary outcome, at 2 years was 12% (39 of 323) in the mesh group and 20% (64 of 327) in the control group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·43-0·90; p=0·012). In 455 patients for whom 1 year postoperative CT scans were available, there was a lower radiologically defined hernia rate in mesh versus control groups (20 [9%] of 229 vs 47 [21%] of 226, adjusted RR 0·42, 95% CI 0·26-0·69; p<0·001). There was also a reduction in symptomatic hernia (16%, 52 of 329 vs 19%, 64 of 331; adjusted relative risk 0·83, 0·60-1·16; p=0·29) and surgical reintervention (12%, 42 of 344 vs 16%, 54 of 346: adjusted relative risk 0·78, 0·54-1·13; p=0·19) at 2 years, but this result did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences were seen in wound infection rate, seroma rate, quality of life, pain scores, or serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

Reinforcement of the abdominal wall with a biological mesh at the time of stoma closure reduced clinically detectable incisional hernia within 24 months of surgery and with an acceptable safety profile. The results of this study support the use of biological mesh in stoma closure site reinforcement to reduce the early formation of incisional hernias.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Research for Patient Benefit and Allergan.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of incisional hernia post-reversal of ileostomy

PURPOSE

Incisional hernia following closure of loop ileostomy is a common problem. Assessment of the proportion of this complication is limited by small sample size and inconsistent reporting. The aim of this review was to provide an estimate of the proportion of incisional hernia following closure of loop ileostomy according to clinical and radiological diagnostic criteria and to investigate the association of bibliometric and study quality parameters with reported proportion.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ISRCTN Registry and Open Grey from 2000 onwards was performed according to PRISMA standards. Reporting on the type of stoma and mesh reinforcement after closure was mandatory for inclusion, whereas studies on paediatric populations were excluded. Fixed effect or random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportion estimates. Meta-regression models were formed to explore potential heterogeneity.

RESULTS

42 studies with 7166 patients were included. The pooled estimate of the proportion of incisional hernia after ileostomy closure was 6.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 4.4-8.3%). Proportion estimates for higher quality studies and studies reporting on incisional hernia as primary outcome were 9.0% (95% CI 6.3-12.7%) and 13.1% (95% CI 8.8-19.1%). Significant between-study heterogeneity was identified (P < 0.001, I² = 87%) and the likelihood of publication bias was high (P = 0.028). Mixed effects regression showed that both year of publication (P = 0.034, Q = 4.484, df = 1.000) and defining hernia as a primary outcome (Q = 20.298, P < 0.001) were related to effect size. Method of follow-up and quality of the studies affected the proportion.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of incisional hernia at ileostomy closure site is estimated at 6.1%. Reporting incisional hernia as primary or secondary outcome, the method of diagnosis, the year of publication and methodological quality are associated with reported proportion.

Incidence of and risk factors for incisional hernia after closure of temporary ileostomy for colorectal malignancy

PURPOSE

Incisional hernia is a major complication after stoma closure and can cause uncomfortable symptoms. In this study, we evaluated the risk factors for hernia formation with the aim of reducing the incidence of incisional hernia.

METHODS

A total of 134 oncology patients underwent closure of a temporary loop ileostomy between May 2004 and December 2013. The incidence of incisional hernia was determined by routine follow-up computed tomography scanning every 6 months. The relationships between patients' characteristics, including age, sex, obesity, diabetes mellitus, surgical site infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, hypoalbuminemia, smoking, and presence of a midline hernia and the occurrence of incisional hernia were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 47 months (range 8-130). Hernias occurred in 23.9% of patients (32/134). The median time to detection of hernias was 8 months (range 2-39). The Chi-squared test revealed significant differences in obesity (P = 0.0003), hypertension (P = 0.0057), and incisional hernia history (P = 0.0000) between patients with and without incisional hernia. Multivariable analysis and univariate analysis revealed that hypertension and the presence of midline incisional hernia were risk factors for incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertension and the presence of a midline incisional hernia were the major risk factors for incisional hernia after loop ileostomy closure. These risk factors can be addressed before planning surgery.

Preloop trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD/DESIGN

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Incidence, risk factors and prevention of stoma site incisional hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Stoma reversal might lead to a stoma site incisional hernia. Recently, prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the stoma site has gained increased attention, supporting the need for accurate data on the incidence of and risk factors for stoma site incisional hernia and to identify high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to assess incidence, risk factors and prevention of stoma site incisional hernias.

METHOD

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases were searched. Studies reporting the incidence of stoma site incisional hernia after stoma reversal were included. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data on incidence, risk factors and prophylactic mesh reinforcement were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 1440 articles found, 33 studies comprising 4679 reversals were included. The overall incidence of incisional hernia was 6.5% [range 0%-38%, median follow-up 27.5 (17.54-36) months]. Eleven studies assessed stoma site incisional hernia as the primary end-point, showing an incidence of 17.7% [range 1.7%-36.1%, median follow-up 28 (15.25-51.70) months]. Body mass index, diabetes and surgery for malignant disease were found to be independent risk factors, as derived from eight studies. Two retrospective comparative cohort studies showed significantly lower rates of stoma site incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement compared with nonmesh controls [6.4% vs 36.1% (P = 0.001); 3% vs 19% (P = 0.04)].

CONCLUSION

Stoma site incisional hernia should not be underestimated as a long-term problem. Body mass index, diabetes and malignancy seem to be potential risk factors. Currently, limited data are available on the outcomes of prophylactic mesh reinforcement to prevent stoma site incisional hernia.