Stomal Closure: Strategies to Prevent Incisional Hernia

Prophylactic Biosynthetic Retrorectus Mesh Placement During Stoma Reversal Reduces the Rate of Stoma Site Incisional Hernia

INTRODUCTION

Stoma site incisional hernias (SSIHs) are associated with substantial long-term morbidity, and the rate can be as high as 30% to 40%. Recent efforts using prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) to reduce the development of hernias have shown encouraging outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the use of prophylactic biosynthetic mesh at the time of stoma reversal on the overall SSIH rate.

METHODS

This is an observational retrospective cohort study. A review of 101 consecutive patients who underwent PMR in the retrorectus plane from 2015 to 2020 was compared to 73 consecutive patients who underwent primary stoma closure without mesh from 2011 to 2014. The primary endpoint was the presence of SSIH on clinical examination or computed tomography after ostomy takedown.

RESULTS

In total, 174 cases were analyzed with 101 patients in the treatment group (median follow-up 45.2 months) and 73 patients in the control group (median follow-up 43.2 months). There were no major differences in preoperative characteristics between the groups. Fourteen patients developed SSIHs with 1 (1.0%) in the treatment arm and 13 (17.8%) in the control arm (p = 0.001). The majority of stomas were loop ileostomies and end colostomies, and stoma type did not affect hernia rates. On univariate analysis, body mass index (p = 0.029) and chronic kidney disease < 3 (p = 0.003) were independent predictors of hernia formation, while mesh was significantly protective (p = 0.000057).

DISCUSSION

PMR with biosynthetic mesh at the time of stoma reversal and closure is an effective procedure to reduce the incidence of SSIHs and does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of complications.

Diverting ileostomy in benign colorectal surgery: the real clinical cost analysis

There are three types of complications stoma related: ones related to its construction, ones related to its function and related to closure. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of complications related to the stoma presence and to identificate variables related to complications. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent sphincter-preserving elective surgery for benign condition between January 2013 and December 2020 at IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital in Negrar, Verona. Data were collected regarding demographics and complications associated with primary surgery, stoma closure and the interval period. Univariable and multivariable analysIs were conducted. A total of 446 (12.2%) diverting loop ileostomies were performed. At index procedure, 76 (17%) patients had complications and 34 patients had complications related to ileostomy creation. Twenty patients (4.4%) were re admitted before stoma closure for dehydration. One hundred and eighty-seven patients (41.9%) suffered from ileostomy management's problems. At univariate analysis, complications of having stoma are more frequent in elder patients (p = 0.013), ASA score > 2 (p = 0.02), IBD diagnosis (p = < 0.001) and patients who had ileostomy creation complications (p = 0.04). At stoma closure, 55 (12.3%) patients had complications. Forty-seven patients (10.5%) presented incisional hernia in the stoma closure site. Ileostomy closure complications are more common with ASA score > 2 (p = 0.01) and IBD diagnosis (p < 0.001). IBD was found an independent factor of poor outcome at the time of ileostomy creation and closure. Developing complications at the time of ileostomy creation is statistically related to develop complications during ileostomy maintenance at multivariable analysis A loop ileostomy is usually created to limit the potentially life-threatening consequenceS of anastomotic leakage, but it is not able to decrease the leak-related mortality, wound sepsis, postoperative bleeding and small bowel obstruction. Debate rises not only for its uncertain efficacy but also because of the significant morbidity related to stoma. The surgeon could use these data in order to tailor his surgical strategy to the patients and their disease.

Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Non-Midline Incisions: A Systematic Review

Background

Many abdominal-pelvic surgeries utilize incisions not along the linea alba, such as transverse, laparoscopic, ostomy reversal, or ostomy formation incisions. The prevalence of ventral incisional hernias (VIH) at these sites and the efficacy of prophylactic mesh in preventing VIH remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception to September 2022. We included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared prophylactic mesh reinforcement versus no mesh. The primary outcome was the incidence of VIH at postoperative follow-up equal to or greater than 24 months. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI) and surgical site occurrence (SSO).

Results

Of 3186 screened articles, only 3 RCTs with at least an 80% 2-year follow-up, encompassing a total of 901 patients, were included for analysis of non-midline VIH. Fifteen additional RCTs were included for analysis of secondary outcomes. The rate of parastomal hernias with prophylactic mesh was 21%, while it ranged from 44%-64% in the control group. The rate of incisional hernia after ostomy reversal with prophylactic mesh was 10%, and 16% in the control group. No clear evidence of a difference was found in rates of SSI or SSO between groups.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence on the role of prophylactic mesh in preventing non-midline VIH. More studies at low risk for bias are needed to elucidate the balance of the long-term risks and benefits of prophylactic mesh for non-midline incisions.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Incidence, risk factors, and predictive modeling of stoma site incisional hernia after enterostomy closure: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) is a common complication, but its incidence and risk factors are not well known. The objective of this study is to explore the incidence and risk factors of SSIH and build a predictive model.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis on the patients who underwent enterostomy closure from January 2018 to August 2020. Patient's general condition, perioperative, intraoperative, and follow-up information was collected. The patients were divided into control group (no occurrence) and observation group (occurrence) according to whether SSIH occurred. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to evaluate the risk factors of SSIH, following which we constructed a nomogram for SSIH prediction.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six patients were enrolled in the study. The incidence of SSIH was 24.4% (38 cases), of which 14 were treated with hernia mesh repair, and the others were treated with conservative treatment. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 68 years (OR 1.045, 95% CI 1.002 ~ 1.089, P = 0.038), colostomy (OR 2.913, 95% CI 1.035 ~ 8.202, P = 0.043), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR 1.181, 95% CI 1.010 ~ 1.382, P = 0.037), malignant tumor (OR 4.838, 95% CI 1.508 ~ 15.517, P = 0.008) and emergency surgery (OR 5.327, 95% CI 1.996 ~ 14.434, P = 0.001) are the independent risk factors for SSIH.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, a predictive model for the occurrence of SSIH was constructed to screen high-risk groups of SSIH. For patients at high risk for SSIH, how to deal with the follow-up and prevent the occurrence of SSIH is worth further exploration.

Incidence of incisional hernia after major colorectal cancer surgery & analysis of associated risk factors in Asian population: Is laparoscopy any better?

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is one of the common morbidities after major colorectal cancer surgery. We aim to compare the incidence of incisional hernias between laparoscopic and open surgery. We also aim to identify associated risk factors of incisional hernia among Asian population who has undergone major resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Data of patients who had undergone major colorectal cancer surgery in year 2015 from a single institution was collected. Data were extracted from electronic clinical records from our institution's database. Incisional hernias were identified by clinical examination and computed tomography (CT) scan performed during post-operative follow up as part of colorectal cancer surveillance. Follow up data of up to 3 years were extracted. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed to identify associated risk factors for development of incisional hernia. Propensity score matching analysis was performed for laparoscopic and open resection.

RESULTS

502 patients were included in the study. With a minimum follow up of 3 years, overall incisional hernia incidence rate of 13% was identified. Incisional hernias after laparoscopic and open surgery were 12.3% and 13.8% (p = 0.688) respectively. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index (BMI) of >23kg/m2, ASA of III/IV and post-operative anastomotic leak were associated with development of incisional hernias. On multivariable analysis, female gender (OR 2.102, 95%CI: 1.155, 3.826), BMI of ≥23 kg/m2 (OR 2.862 95%CI: 1.582, 5.181), ASA III/IV (OR 2.052, 95%CI: 1.169, 3.602), were significantly associated with development of incisional hernia. Propensity scores matched analysis showed laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernia.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of incisional hernia seems lower in Asian population. Our study demonstrated no significant difference in incisional hernia rates between patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery. Female gender, higher BMI, and higher ASA are associated with increased risk of developing incisional hernia after major colorectal cancer resection.

Factors Predicting the Reversal of Hartmann’s Procedure

Aim

This paper investigates the risk factors preventing the reversal and nonreversal of Hartmann's procedure, as a surgical technique that has been performed in our clinic for ten years.

Methods

The study involved a ten-year Hartmann's procedure followed up at our center. The patients were divided into Hartmann reversal and nonreversal groups. Groups were examined in terms of age, gender, diagnosis, stage of malignancy, ASA score, comorbidity, perioperative morbidity-mortality, and the length of the operation.

Results

Age (p < 0.001), ASA score (p < 0.001), stage in case of malignancy (p = 0.002), and comorbidities (p < 0.001) were significant risk factors. The ratio of patients without any comorbidities to those with one or more comorbidities was 2.63 (95% CI 1.12–6.20). Among the malignant patients, the ratio of early-stage patients to advanced-stage patients in the group with reversal of Hartmann's colostomy was 2.82 (95% CI 1.30–6.10). In addition, the ratio of older patients to younger patients in group 2 was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92–0.98). A univariate analysis revealed that younger patients, those with lower ASA scores, those without comorbidities, and those with early-stage malignancy had a greater chance of closure of the stoma.

Conclusion

Although Hartmann's procedure is performed in emergency surgery, the nonreversal of the colostomy is a problem in itself. It should be kept in mind that patients who have high risks are likely to have a permanent stoma.

When to use a prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: a case-control study

Purpose

The closure of a stoma is frequently associated with an acceptable morbidity and mortality. One of the most frequent complications is incisional hernia at the stoma site, which occurs in 20%–40% of cases, higher than incisions in other parts of the abdomen. The objective of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with the presentation of incisional hernia after stoma closure, this in order to select patients who are candidates for prophylactic mesh placement during closure.

Methods

An unpaired case–control study was conducted. This study involved 164 patients who underwent a stoma closure between January 2014 and December 2019. Associated factors for the development of incisional hernia at the site of the stoma after closure were identified, for which it was performed a logistic regression analysis.

Results

41 cases and 123 controls were analyzed, with a mean follow-up of 35.21 ± 18.42 months, the mean age for performing the stoma closure was 65.28 ± 14.07 years, the most frequent cause for performing the stoma was malignant disease (65.85%). Risk factor for the development of incisional hernia at the stoma site after its closure was identified as a history of parastomal hernia (OR 5.90, CI95% 1.97–17.68).

Conclusions

The use of prophylactic mesh at stoma closure should be considered in patients with a history of parastomal hernia since these patients present a significantly higher risk of developing a hernia.

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

AIMS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Obesity is a significant risk factor for ileostomy site incisional hernia following reversal

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia following ileostomy reversal can cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life, and burden on the healthcare system. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of ileostomy site incisional hernia following reversal and to identify possible risk factors for its development.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive patients who underwent ileostomy reversal between November 1999 to February 2015 by a single surgeon. Primary outcome analysed was incisional hernia occurrence at the previous stoma site.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-four ileostomy reversals were identified. The most common indication for ileostomy construction was colorectal cancer, followed by inflammatory bowel disease and diverticulosis. The stomas were either a loop (75%), end-loop (24%) or end ileostomy (1%). The mean time interval from the stoma creation to reversal was 6.1 months (range 2-69, SD 7.1). After a mean follow-up of 30.7 months (range 10-89, SD 15.1), 12 patients (5%) developed a hernia at the previous stoma. The mean time for hernia occurrence was 25.2 months (range 3-126, SD 32). Patients who developed ileostomy site incisional hernia were more likely to have a higher body mass index (28.1 versus 26.3, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Although we found a lower rate of incisional hernias after reversal of ileostomies than reported elsewhere in the literature, it remains a significant clinical problem. Obesity is a significant risk factor for ileostomy-site incisional hernia.