A systematic review on the use of prophylactic mesh during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia formation

Development of a core descriptor set for parastomal hernia repair

AIM

Parastomal hernia repair is a poorly evidenced area, with uncertainty around the optimum management. There is considerable heterogeneity within the patient cohort, and currently there is no standardization of patient descriptors in the reporting of parastomal hernia repair. The aim of this study was to develop a core descriptor set of key patient characteristics for patients undergoing surgical repair of a parastomal hernia for reporting in all parastomal hernia research.

METHOD

A longlist of descriptors was generated from a review of the existing literature. The longlist was discussed with patients with lived experience of parastomal hernia repair. Colorectal, general and hernia surgeons took part in a three-round international modified Delphi process using a nine-point Likert scale to rank the importance of descriptors. Items meeting predetermined thresholds were included in the final set and discussed and ratified at the consensus meeting.

RESULTS

Seventy seven respondents completed round one, with 23 (29.8%) completing round three. Eighty six descriptors were rated across the three rounds, with 52 descriptors shortlisted. The consensus meeting ratified a final core descriptor set with 19 descriptors across eight domains: anatomy, contamination, disease, previous treatment, risk factors, symptoms, pathway and other hernia.

CONCLUSION

The core descriptor set reflects characteristics that are important to surgeons when reporting on parastomal hernia repair. The use of this agreed core descriptor set may aid the reporting of future studies.

Umbrella review of systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of using mesh in the prevention of parastomal hernias

BACKGROUND

This umbrella review aimed to summarize the findings and conclusions of published systematic reviews on the prophylactic role of mesh against parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

PRISMA-compliant umbrella overview of systematic reviews on the role of mesh in prevention of parastomal hernias was conducted. PubMed and Scopus were searched through November 2023. Main outcomes were efficacy and safety of mesh. Efficacy was assessed by the rates of clinically and radiologically detected hernias and the need for surgical repair, while safety was assessed by the rates of overall complications.

RESULTS

19 systematic reviews were assessed; 7 included only patients with end colostomy and 12 included patients with either ileostomy or colostomy. The use of mesh significantly reduced the risk of clinically detected parastomal hernias in all reviews except one. Seven reviews reported a significantly lower risk of radiologically detected parastomal hernias with the use of mesh. The pooled hazards ratio of clinically detected and radiologically detected parastomal hernias was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.26-0.41) and 0.55 (95%CI: 0.45-0.68), respectively. Six reviews reported a significant reduction in the need for surgical repair when a mesh was used whereas six reviews found a similar need for hernia repair. The pooled hazards ratio for surgical hernia repair was 0.46 (95%CI: 0.35-0.62). Eight reviews reported similar complications in the two groups. The pooled hazard ratio of complications was 0.81 (95%CI: 0.66-1).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of surgical mesh is likely effective and safe in the prevention of parastomal hernias without an increased risk of overall complications.

Development and pilot testing of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia

AIM

The aim was to develop and pilot a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia (PSH).

METHODS

Standard questionnaire development was undertaken (phases 1-3). An initial list of questionnaire domains was identified from validated colorectal cancer PROMs and from semi-structured interviews with patients with a PSH and health professionals (phase 1). Domains were operationalized into items in a provisional questionnaire, and 'think-aloud' patient interviews explored face validity and acceptability (phase 2). The updated questionnaire was piloted in patients with a stoma who had undergone colorectal surgery and had a computed tomography scan available for review. Patient-reported symptoms were examined in relation to PSH (phase 3). Three sources determined PSH presence: (i) data about PSH presence recorded in hospital notes, (ii) independent expert review of the computed tomography scan and (iii) patient report of being informed of a PSH by a health professional.

RESULTS

For phase 1, 169 and 127 domains were identified from 70 PROMs and 29 interviews respectively. In phase 2, 14 domains specific to PSH were identified and operationalized into questionnaire items. Think-aloud interviews led to three minor modifications. In phase 3, 44 completed questionnaires were obtained. Missing data were few: 5/660 items. PSH symptom scores associated with PSH presence varied between different data sources. The scale with the most consistent differences between PSH presence and absence and all data sources was the stoma appearance scale.

CONCLUSION

A PROM to examine the symptoms of PSH has been developed from the literature and views of key informants. Although preliminary testing shows it to be understandable and acceptable it is uncertain if it is sensitive to PSH-specific symptoms and further psychometric testing is needed.

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.

What should be included in case report forms? Development and application of novel methods to inform surgical study design: a mixed methods case study in parastomal hernia prevention

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation.

DESIGN

(1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a 'long list' of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study.

SETTING

Two secondary care surgical centres in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Successful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study.

RESULTS

59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN17573805.

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.

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.

Abdominal Oblique Internal and External Muscles Gap Colostomy for Lower Incidence of Parastomal Hernia and Higher Quality of Life: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia and fecal incontinence cause severe distress to the rectal cancer patients with stoma after abdominoperineal resection. We attempted a new colostomy technique through the gap between the abdominal oblique internal and external muscles to prevent parastomal hernia and improve quality of life.

METHODS

This cohort study retrospectively examined clinical data from a total of 114 consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection in our center from March 2016 to March 2018 after propensity score matching. Group A included 57 patients who underwent colostomy through the gap between the abdominal oblique internal and oblique external muscles, while group B included 57 patients who underwent extraperitoneal colostomy. Patients' quality of life was evaluated using Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL) Scale.

RESULTS

Group A had a lower incidence of parastomal hernia (0% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.004) and higher quality of life, especially in lifestyle, coping/behavior and embarrassment domains (all p values < 0.05) than group B both during the follow-up period. The incidence of other outcomes did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Colostomy through the gap between the abdominal oblique internal and oblique external muscle is a new technique showing both safety and effectiveness for preventing parastomal hernia and improving quality of life after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

Protocol for the UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study)

AIM

Abdominal surgery sometimes necessitates the creation of a stoma, which can cause future complications including parastomal hernia (PSH), an incisional hernia adjacent to and related to the stoma. PSH affects approximately 40% of patients within 2 years of stoma formation. Complications of PSH reduce a patient's quality of life and can be severe (e.g. bowel obstruction). PSHs are difficult to manage and can recur after surgical repair. Therefore, it is very important to prevent a PSH. Surgeons create stomas in different ways and both patient and surgical factors are believed to influence the development of PSH. The aim of the CIPHER study is to investigate the influence of different surgical techniques on the development of PSH.

METHOD

The UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study) aims to recruit 4000 patients undergoing elective or expedited surgery with the intention of forming an ileostomy or colostomy, irrespective of the primary indication for the planned surgery. For each patient, surgeons will describe their methods of trephine formation, mesh reinforcement of the stoma trephine, use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site and wound closure. The primary outcome will be incident PSH during follow-up, defined as symptoms of PSH (custom-designed questionnaire) and anatomical PSH, ascertained by independent reading of usual care CT scans. Secondary outcomes will include surgical site infection, the Comprehensive Complication Index, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and SF-12), PSH repair and use of NHS resources.

RESULTS

Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. All publications relating to the results of CIPHER will use a corporate authorship, 'The CIPHER Study Investigators' with named writing committee members.

CONCLUSION

The CIPHER study will be the first to investigate detailed surgical methods of stoma formation in a large, representative cohort of patients with a range of primary indications, both cancer and noncancer.

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.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery

AIM

There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland.

METHODS

Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting.

Emergency laparoscopic treatment of complicated parastomal hernias

Parastomal hernia is not a rare event. Being by definition a complication of ostomy creation, a parastomal hernia also carries the risk of becoming symptomatic and complicated. At present, there are not enough solid data in literature to allow an evidence-based approach to this condition and to its possible complications, especially in the emergency setting. The aim of this paper is to describe through a narrative review of the literature the different surgical approaches concerning parastomal hernias. In order to exemplify the emergency complications we also present two cases in which the watchful waiting approach eventually led to the necessity of urgent surgical treatment, due to bowel incarceration into the parastomal hernia. We chose to tailor the surgical plan on the patient's anatomic and clinical condition, pursuing the laparoscopic approach with two different surgical technique (Sugarbaker and keyhole), each time estimated by the operating surgeon to be the more suitable option for the patient. We acknowledge that laparoscopy can be an optimal choice for the emergency and elective treatment of parastomal hernias, whenever an appropriate know-how is present.

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.

Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias of Systematic Reviews of Prophylactic Mesh for Parastomal Hernia Prevention Using AMSTAR and ROBIS Tools

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in clinical decision making and resource allocation and are expected to be unbiased and consistent. The aim of this study is a review of systematic reviews on the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia (PH) formation using ROBIS and AMSTAR tools to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis of which the objective was to assess the use of a prophylactic mesh to prevent PH. A systematic search of the literature in five databases from inception until December 2017 was conducted. For each systematic review, methodologic quality and risk of bias were assessed using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools, respectively. We estimated the inter-rater reliability for individual domains and for the overall methodological quality and risk of bias using Fleiss' k.

RESULTS

We identified 14 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Using the AMSTAR scale with a cutoff value, six reviews showed high methodologic quality and eight were of low quality. Using the ROBIS tool, the overall risk of bias was low in 50% of the reviews analyzed. In the remaining studies, the risk of bias was unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

The global evidence in favor of the use of a prophylactic mesh for preventing PH is not uniform regarding quality and risk of bias. Surgeons cannot be equally confident in the results of all systematic reviews published on this topic.

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.

Other Surgeries in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) will often require abdominal surgical intervention for indications not directly related to their IBD. Because these patients often have a history of multiple previous abdominal operations and/or ostomies, they are at increased risk for incisional and parastomal hernias. They may also have develop symptomatic cholelithiasis, chronic pain, or desmoid disease. All of these potentially surgical issues may require special consideration in the IBD population.

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.

The incidence of stoma related morbidity - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Introduction Several stoma related complications can occur following ileostomy or colostomy formation. The reported incidence of these conditions varies widely in the literature. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials reporting the incidence of stoma related complications in adults was performed to provide the most comprehensive summary of existing data. Methods PubMed, CINAHL® (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and the Cochrane Library were searched for trials assessing the incidence of complications in adults undergoing conventional stoma formation. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and entered into SPSS® for statistical analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias was used to critically appraise each study. Cochran's Q statistic and the I2 statistic were used to measure the level of heterogeneity between studies. Results Overall, 18 trials were included, involving 1,009 patients. The incidence of stoma related complications ranged from 2.9% to 81.1%. Peristomal skin complications and parastomal hernia were the most common complications. End colostomy had the highest incidence of morbidity, followed by loop colostomy and loop ileostomy. There were no trials involving patients with end ileostomy. There was a high level of detection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Conclusions This systematic review has summarised the best available evidence concerning the incidence of stoma related morbidity. The high level of heterogeneity between studies has limited the accuracy with which the true incidence of each stoma related complication can be reported. Large, multicentre trials investigating homogenous participant populations are therefore required.

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.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Incisional hernia prevention and use of mesh. A narrative review

Incisional hernias are a very common problem, with an estimated incidence around 15-20% of all laparotomies. Evisceration is another important problem, with a lower rate (2.5-3%) but severe consequences for patients. Prevention of both complications is an essential objective of correct patient treatment due to the improved quality of life and cost savings. This narrative review intends to provide an update on incisional hernia and evisceration prevention. We analyze the current criteria for proper abdominal wall closure and the possibility to add prosthetic reinforcement in certain cases requiring it. Parastomal, trocar-site hernias and hernias developed after stoma closure are included in this review.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias

BACKGROUND

International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project.

METHODS

The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants.

RESULTS

End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed.

CONCLUSION

An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

Parastomal Hernia Repair with Intraperitoneal Mesh

Purpose

Parastomal hernia is a common complication following a stoma and may cause leakage or incarceration. No optimal treatment has been established, and existing methods using mesh repair are associated with high recurrence rates and a considerable risk for short- and long-term complications including death. A double-layer intraperitoneal on-lay mesh (IPOM), the Parastomal Hernia Patch (BARD™), consisting of ePTFE and polypropylene, has been developed and tailored to avoid recurrence. To evaluate the safety of and recurrence rate using this mesh, a nonrandomised prospective multicentre study was performed.

Method

Fifty patients requiring surgery for parastomal hernia were enrolled. Clinical examination and CT scan prior to surgery were performed. All patients were operated on using the Parastomal Hernia Patch (BARD). Postoperative follow-up at one month and one year was scheduled to detect complications and hernia recurrence.

Results

The postoperative complication rate at one month was 15/50 (30%). The parastomal hernia recurrence rate at one year was 11/50 (22%). The reoperation rate at one month was 7/50 (14%), and further 5/50 (10%) patients were reoperated on during the following eleven months.

Open Retromuscular Repair of Parastomal Hernias with Synthetic Mesh

Parastomal hernias (PHs) cause significant morbidity in patients with permanent ostomies, and several laparoscopic and open repair techniques have been described. We report our experience with open retromuscular repair of PHs using permanent synthetic mesh. A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients undergoing PH repair. Primary outcomes are surgical site occurrence, surgical site infection (SSI), and hernia recurrence. Variables were analyzed using Pearson's χ2 test or Fisher's exact test. Values of P < 0.05 were considered significant. Forty-six patients underwent retromuscular PH repair with permanent synthetic mesh. There were 26 patients with colostomies and 20 with ileostomies. All the patients were repaired using a keyhole retromuscular technique and direct passage of stoma through mesh. Transversus abdominis release was performed in 65.2 per cent of cases. Permanent synthetic polypropylene mesh was used in all cases. Surgical site occurrence occurred in 47.8 per cent of patients, SSI in 17.4 per cent, and hernia recurrence in 21.7 per cent. Resiting the stoma yielded the highest rate of SSI (40%) compared with leaving the stoma in situ (11.8%) or rematuring the stoma (0%; P = 0.011). Open keyhole retromuscular PH repair of PH with permanent synthetic mesh is safe, effective, and durable.

Prevention of parastomal hernia in the emergency setting

AIM

This study assessed safety and efficacy associated with hernia prophylaxis using a retromuscular slowly resorbable synthetic mesh for stoma reinforcement.

METHOD

This was a cohort study with a historic reference group. The study took place in a high-volume surgical department. During a 2-year period (July 2012-July 2014), we included 109 patients undergoing emergency surgery with formation of ileostomy or colostomy. All patients received a retromuscular slowly resorbable synthetic mesh (TIGR®, Novus Scientific) at the stoma site. The reference group included 117 patients who underwent emergency stoma formation without a prophylactic mesh in the 2-year period prior to July 2012. The primary endpoint was effect on prevention of parastomal hernia within 1 year. Secondary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year complications including mortality.

RESULTS

The operative field was contaminated or dirty in 48% of the procedures. Operative time was significantly longer in the mesh group. The cumulative incidences of parastomal hernia at 1 year for the control and the mesh group were 8 and 7% (p = 0.424), respectively. The postoperative 30-day and 1-year rate of complications, reoperations and mortality were not different between the two groups. No patients underwent removal of the mesh and no clinical mesh infections were seen.

CONCLUSION

Use of a resorbable synthetic mesh during emergency ostomy formation showed no significant preventive effect on formation of parastomal hernia after 1 year. Although surgery was often conducted in a severely contaminated field, the procedure was without significantly increased complication rate.

Preventing parastomal hernias with systematic intraperitoneal specifically designed mesh

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia is a very common complication after stoma formation. Current surgical techniques for repairing parastomal hernia have unsatisfactory results. We aim to assess our preliminary experience with prophylactic mesh placement at the time of stoma formation.

METHODS

Data were prospectively recorded. A specifically designed mesh made of polyvinyl fluoride with central conduit (Dynamesh IPST®) was fixed using an intra-peritoneal onlay technique. Safety was evaluated by means of surgical data and frequency of mesh-related complications, efficacy by the rate of parastomal hernias.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included in the study. Three of them died before a year of follow up (not related to the stoma), so they were excluded. The other 31 patients (11 women and 20 men) were prospectively followed up after different pathologies resulting in a permanent colostomy. Twelve months after surgery CT-Scan imaging revealed two (6.4%) parastomal hernias, one of them already clinically suspected. During the follow up, 29% of the patients (n = 9) developed another type of hernia (incisional, inguinal or both). In five patients (16.1%) a light stomal retraction of the otherwise slightly prominent ostomy was observed. Median clinical follow-up was 17.5 months (range 12-34).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic parastomal mesh placement might be a safe and effective procedure with a potential to reduce the risk of parastomal hernia. Routine use of this technique should be further analysed.

Prophylactic mesh placement for the PREvention of paraSTOmal hernias: The PRESTO systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Parastomal hernia (PH) is the most common complication after ostomy formation. Prophylactic mesh placement may be effective in reducing the rate of PH at the stoma site. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize the evidence with regard to the safety and effectiveness in comparison with the standard procedure without mesh placement and to identify important risk constellations.

Method

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library with no language or date restrictions. Randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) were included. The main outcomes of interest were PH (primary outcome) rate and stoma-related complications (secondary outcomes) such as stenosis or fistula. Statistical analysis included meta-analyses of pooled data and subgroup analyses.

Results

Eleven trials (eight RCTs; three nRCTs) with a total of 755 patients were included. PH rate varied from 0% to 59% in the intervention and from 20% to 94% in the control group. RCTs showed a significant reduction of PH rate in the mesh group (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.58, p = 0.034), whereas included nRCTs did not. No significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rates. Subgroup analyses showed superiority of non-absorbable meshes and sublay mesh positioning in open surgery.

Conclusion

Prophylactic mesh placement is safe and reduces PH rate. A recommendation for prophylactic non-absorbable meshes in a sublay position can be made for patients undergoing open colorectal operations with end-ostomies. Further research endeavors should focus on patient-oriented outcomes, not only PH rate, with respect to tailored treatment in specific patient populations.

Prophylactic mesh use during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia

Introduction Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common problem following stoma formation. The optimal technique for stoma formation is unknown although recent studies have focused on whether placement of prophylactic mesh at stoma formation can reduce PSH rates. The aim of this study was to systematically review use of prophylactic mesh versus no mesh with regard to occurrence of PSH and peristomal complications. Methods A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase™ and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials that analysed placement of prophylactic mesh versus no mesh at time of initial surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects methods. Results A total of 506 studies were identified by our search strategy. Of these, 8 studies were included, involving 430 patients (217 mesh vs 213 no mesh). Prophylactic mesh placement resulted in a significantly lower rate of PSH formation (42/217 [19.4%] vs 92/213 [43.2%]) with a combined risk ratio of 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.75, p=0.004). Placement of prophylactic mesh did not result in increased peristomal complications (15/218 [6.9%] vs 16/227 [7.0%]) with a combined risk ratio of 1.0 (95% CI: 0.49-2.01, p=0.990). Conclusions Prophylactic placement of mesh at primary stoma formation may reduce the incidence of PSH, without an increase in peristomal complications. However, the overall quality of the randomised controlled trials included in the meta-analysis was poor, and should prompt caution regarding the applicability of the findings of the individual studies and the meta-analysis to everyday practice.

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

BACKGROUND

Implantation of mesh at the time of stoma formation may reduce the rate of parastomal hernia. Until recently, the evidence has been limited to only a few small randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

We present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of mesh prophylaxis on rates of parastomal hernia. We examine ongoing and unpublished trials via online registries and propose recommendations for future research.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 2016 for published randomized controlled trials. Sixteen international trial registries were inspected for ongoing and unpublished trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials comparing mesh versus no mesh on the incidence of parastomal hernia after colostomy or ileostomy formation were selected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was rate of parastomal hernia at least 12 months after stoma formation. Secondary outcomes included rates of stoma-related complications.

RESULTS

Of 3005 studies identified, 7 randomized controlled trials (432 patients) were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. All were at high risk of bias. Mesh reduced the incidence of clinically detected parastomal hernia (10.8% vs 32.4%; p = 0.001) (risk ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.65; I = 39%) and the rate of radiologically detected parastomal hernia (34.6% vs 55.3%; p = 0.01) (risk ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89; I = 44%). No increase in the incidence of stoma-related complications was observed with the use of prophylactic mesh. Results from ongoing and unpublished randomized controlled trials are expected, but few will report on alternative mesh types or surgical techniques.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of interventions, small patient populations, and a high risk of bias seen in all studies implicate cautious interpretation of the results.

CONCLUSION

Mesh prophylaxis at the time of stoma formation appears safe and effective in preventing parastomal hernia; however, limitations of the primary evidence justify larger, more rigorous randomized controlled trials.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia

BACKGROUND

Rates of parastomal hernia following stoma formation remain high. Previous systematic reviews suggested that prophylactic mesh reduces the rate of parastomal hernia; however, a larger trial has recently called this into question. The aim was to determine whether mesh placed at the time of primary stoma creation prevents parastomal hernia.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched using medical subject headings for parastomal hernia, mesh and prevention. Reference lists of identified studies, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were also searched. All randomized clinical trials were included. Two authors extracted data from each study independently using a purpose-designed sheet. Risk of bias was assessed by a tool based on that developed by Cochrane.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials were identified among 150 studies screened. In total 649 patients were included in the analysis (324 received mesh). Overall the rates of parastomal hernia were 53 of 324 (16·4 per cent) in the mesh group and 119 of 325 (36·6 per cent) in the non-mesh group (odds ratio 0·24, 95 per cent c.i. 0·12 to 0·50; P < 0·001). Mesh reduced the rate of parastomal hernia repair by 65 (95 per cent c.i. 28 to 85) per cent (P = 0·02). There were no differences in rates of parastomal infection, stomal stenosis or necrosis. Mesh type and position, and study quality did not have an independent effect on this relationship.

CONCLUSION

Mesh placed prophylactically at the time of stoma creation reduced the rate of parastomal hernia, without an increase in mesh-related complications.

Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia after end colostomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

Prevention of parastomal hernia (PSH) formation is crucial, given the high prevalence and difficulties in the surgical repair of PSH. To investigate the effect of a preventive mesh in PSH formation after an end colostomy, we aimed to meta-analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched five databases. For each trial, we extracted risk ratios (RRs) of the effects of mesh or no mesh. The primary outcome was incidence of PSH with a minimum follow-up of 12 months with a clinical and/or computed tomography diagnosis. RRs were combined using the random-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel). To control the risk of type I error, we performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with low risk of bias (451 patients) were included. Meta-analysis for primary outcome showed a significant reduction of the incidence of PSH using a mesh (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0009). Regarding TSA calculation for the primary outcome, the accrued information size (451) was 187.1% of the estimated required information size (RIS) (241). Wound infection showed no statistical differences between groups (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39-1.54; P = 0.46). PSH repair rate showed a significant reduction in the mesh group (RR 0.28 (95% CI 0.10-0.78; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PSH prevention with mesh when creating an end colostomy reduces the incidence of PSH, the risk for subsequent PSH repair and does not increase wound infections. TSA shows that the RIS is reached for the primary outcome. Additional RCTs in the previous context are not needed.

Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to determine whether prophylactic mesh decreases the odds of parastomal hernia formation. Randomized controlled trials referenced in MEDLINE or EMBASE between 1946 and 2016 comparing prophylactic mesh to standard stoma formation were included. The primary outcome was occurrence of parastomal hernia. Secondary outcomes were parastomal hernia requiring surgical intervention and complications. Odds ratios were calculated for the primary and secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on mesh type, mesh location, laparoscopic versus open, and method of hernia diagnosis. Nine randomized controlled trials with 569 participants were included. There was a significant decrease in the odds of developing a parastomal hernia in the prophylactic mesh group [odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.38, p < 0.00001, I ² = 36%], as well as decreased odds of requiring surgical repair (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.87, p = 0.02, I ² = 0%). There was no evidence that prophylactic mesh increased the odds of surgical complications (seven studies, OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.73-2.46, p = 0.34, I ² = 34%) or stoma-specific complications (eight studies, OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40-1.05, p = 0.08, I ² = 0%). There was a subgroup effect with synthetic mesh associated with a lower incidence of parastomal hernias which was not appreciated in the biologic mesh group (test of subgroup effect p = 0.01). Five studies had a high risk of bias. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation quality of evidence was moderate. Prophylactic mesh is associated with decreased odds of parastomal hernia formation and the need for surgical repair. There is no evidence that mesh placement increases the odds of complications.

Prophylactic Mesh Application during Colostomy to Prevent Parastomal Hernia: A Meta-Analysis

Background. Parastomal hernia is a common complication after stoma formation, especially in permanent colostomy. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh application during permanent colostomy for preventing parastomal hernia. Methods. Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes in patients who underwent colostomy with or without prophylactic mesh application were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Libraries. Results. This meta-analysis included 8 randomized controlled trials with 522 participants. Our pooled results showed that prophylactic mesh application (mesh group) reduced the incidence of clinically detected parastomal hernia (risk ratio [RR]: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.38; P < 0.00001), radiologically detected parastomal hernia (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47-0.82; P = 0.0008), and surgical repair for herniation (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.14-0.83; P = 0.02) when compared with conventional permanent colostomy formation (control group). The incidence of complications, including wound infection, peristomal infection, mesh infection, stomal necrosis and stenosis, stoma site pain, and fistula, was not higher in the mesh group than in the control group. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that prophylactic mesh application at the time of primary colostomy formation is a promising method for the prevention of parastomal herniation.

Parastomal Hernia: Avoidance and Treatment in the 21st Century

Despite medical and surgical advances leading to increased ability to restore or preserve gastrointestinal continuity, creation of stomas remains a common surgical procedure. Every ostomy results in a risk for subsequent parastomal herniation, which in turn may reduce quality of life and increase health care expenditures. Recent evidence-supported practices such as utilization of prophylactic reinforcement, attention to stoma placement, and laparoscopic-based stoma repairs with mesh provide opportunities to both prevent and successfully treat parastomal hernias.

The Difficult Stoma: Challenges and Strategies

The problems that a patient experiences after the creation of a temporary or permanent stoma can result from many factors, but a carefully constructed stoma located in an ideal location is typically associated with appropriate function and an acceptable quality of life. The construction of the stoma can be confounded by many concomitant conditions that increase the distance that the bowel must traverse or shorten the bowel's capacity to reach. Stomas can be further troubled by a variety of problems that potentially arise early in the recovery period or months later. Surgeons must be familiar with these obstacles and complications to avoid their occurrence and minimize their impact.

Abdominoperineal Excisions in the Treatment Regimen for Advanced and Recurrent Vulvar Cancers-Analysis of a Single-Centre Experience

Vulva cancer is the fourth leading gynaecological malignancy, accounting for approximately 4 % of all gynaecological cancers. Surgery represents the treatment of choice, and cases of advanced or recurrent vulvar cancers are to date a major challenge to multidisciplinary teams. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) in combination with vulvectomy and inguinal lymphadenectomy is the only curative treatment option. Patients' files of all women with squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva who underwent abdominoperineal resection were retrospectively reviewed with special regards to technical challenges the general surgeon will face. Seven women were enrolled in this retrospective study with a median age of 71 years (range 56-79 years). In six patients, the pelvic floor after abdominoperineal excision could be closed by direct suture of the levator muscles. One woman underwent abdominoperineal resection with closure of the defect using a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap. All women underwent radical vulvectomy, in five patients in combination with bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection. Operation time was 377 min (range 130-505 min). The median overall survival after surgery was 27 months (range 4-84 months), with a calculated 5-year survival rate of 42 %. Women with negative lymph nodes revealed a longer survival time after surgery compared to women with lymph node metastases (15.5 vs. 72 months; p = 0.09). Abdominoperineal excisions represent a powerful tool in the multidisciplinary treatment regimen of advanced or recurrent vulvar cancer. Reconstruction of the pelvic floor usually does not require myocutaneous flaps, even when facing large tumours. Despite high complication rates, radical surgery was a feasible treatment with long-term survival potential without mortality.

A pilot single-centre randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of lateral pararectus abdominis compared with transrectus abdominis muscle stoma placement in patients with temporary loop ileostomies: the PATRASTOM trial

AIM

Transrectal stoma placement is considered the standard technique for positioning a stoma. A prospective series using a novel method of lateral pararectal stoma placement recently revealed a remarkably low stoma herniation rate. A randomized trial was conducted to compare the lateral pararectal with the transrectal stoma position with regard to parastomal herniation, stoma-related morbidity and quality of life.

METHOD

Adult patients undergoing elective placement of a temporary loop ileostomy were eligible for inclusion. Patients were intra-operatively randomized to undergo either a lateral pararectal or a transrectal ileostomy. The primary end-point was the rate of parastomal herniation. Secondary end-points included other stoma-related complications and quality of life. Sample size calculation resulted in 54 patients having to be analysed to detect a difference of parastomal herniation of 30% with an 80% power and a 5% significance level. The trial was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (registration number DRKS00003534).

RESULTS

Between April 2012 and April 2014, 30 patients were randomized to each group. The incidence of parastomal herniation did not differ between the lateral pararectal (5 of 27) and the transrectal group (4 of 29; P = 0.725). There was also no significant difference regarding other stoma-related complications and the EORTC quality of life scales C30 and CR29.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of parastomal herniation and other stoma-related complications did not differ between the groups. However, due to the limited sample size a small difference in favour of one of the two stoma placement techniques cannot be entirely ruled out.

Onlay parastomal hernia repair with cross-linked porcine dermal collagen biologic mesh: long-term results

PURPOSE

The optimal technique and mesh type for parastomal hernia repair have yet to be ascertained. Biologic meshes have been advocated in parastomal hernia repair due to purported resistance to infection in contaminated fields. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of additionally cross-linked acellular porcine dermal collagen mesh (Permacol) for onlay parastomal hernia repair.

METHODS

A retrospective review of case notes, and abdominal CT scans when available, was performed for consecutive patients who had a parastomal hernia repaired between January 2007 and May 2010. All hernias were repaired with onlay placement of the biologic mesh. Hernias were classified according to the Moreno-Matias classification where CT scans were available.

RESULTS

Over a 34-month period, 30 consecutive patients, median age 74 years, 17 female, underwent parastomal hernia repair using onlay biologic mesh. There were 23 paracolostomy and seven paraileostomy hernias. The hernia was primary in 26 patients. Pre-operative CT scans were available in 18 patients (Moreno-Matias Type 1 = 1, Type 2 = 4, Type 3 = 13). There was one perioperative death, and 29 patients were available for follow-up, and median duration of follow-up (either CT or clinical) was 36 months (range 3-79). Twenty-six patients developed recurrence of the parastomal hernia (89.6%), and median time to recurrence was 10 months (range 3-72),with Moreno-Matias Type 1 = 0, Type 2 = 4, Type 3 = 14, unknown = 8. Fifteen out of 26 patients have had repairs of the recurrence using a variety of techniques. Of these, 10 patients have had further recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Onlay repair of parastomal hernia with cross-linked porcine dermal collagen biologic mesh reinforcement has poor long-term outcomes with unacceptably high recurrence rates and should not be performed.

Prevention of a Parastomal Hernia by Biological Mesh Reinforcement

Introduction

In the field of hernia prevention, the prophylactic mesh-reinforcement of stoma-sites is one of the most controversially discussed issues. The incidence of parastomal hernias in the literature reported to be up to 48.1% after end colostomy and up to 30.8% after loop of colostomy, but still remains uncertain due to diagnostic variety of clinical or radiological methods, heterogeneous patient groups and variable follow-up intervals. Anyway, the published data regarding the use of synthetic or bio-prostethic meshes in the prevention of parastomal hernia at the primary operation are very scarce.

Methods

A literature search of the Medline database in terms of biological prophylactic mesh implantation in stoma creation identified six systematic reviews, two randomized controlled trials (RCT), two case-controlled studies, and one technical report.

Results

In a systematic review focusing on the prevention of parastomal hernia including only RCTs encompassing one RCT using bio-prosthetic mesh the incidence of herniation was 12.5% compared to 53% in the control group (p < 0.0001). In one RCT and two case-control studies, respectively, there was a significant smaller incidence of parastomal herniation as well as a similar complication rate compared to the control group. Only in one RCT, no significant difference regarding the incidence of parastomal hernia was reported with comparable complication rates.

Conclusion

Thus, so far two RCT and two case-control studies are published with prophylactic bio-prosthetic reinforcement in stoma sites. The majority revealed significant better results in terms of parastomal herniation and without any mesh-related complications in comparison to the non mesh group. Further, multicenter RCT are required to achieve a sufficient level of recommendation.

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

AIM

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is the most common complication of an end-colostomy and about one-quarter of patients need operative repair, which is often unsuccessful. A randomized trial was carried out to compare the results of using mesh or no mesh at the time of formation of a colostomy with the clinical identification of PSH as the primary outcome.

METHOD

In this two-centre randomized trial (Oslo University Hospital and Sykehuset Innlandet Hospital Trust, Norway), patients with rectal cancer undergoing open pelvic surgery were randomized to receive a retromuscular synthetic mesh (study group, n = 32) or no mesh (control group, n = 26) at the time of end-colostomy formation. Postoperative follow up was not blinded and included clinical examination and routine CT.

RESULTS

The median period of follow up was 40 (range: 84) months. There were no differences in demographic variables or complications between the study and control groups. PSH developed in two patients of the study group and in 12 of the control group [OR = 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01-0.30) and hazard ratio 0.134 (95% CI: 0.030-0.603); P < 0.001]. The number needed to treat to avoid one PSH was 2.5 patients. CT demonstrated an increase over time in the size of the fascial orifice in patients with PSH without mesh prophylaxis, in contrast to a stable size in patients with mesh and in the control patients who did not develop PSH.

CONCLUSION

The retromuscular insertion of synthetic mesh at the time of formation of an end-colostomy reduced the risk of PSH.