Search

Background: Recent randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses confirm that the use of a prophylactic mesh does not significantly reduce the parastomal hernia rate. Data about the benefits of these meshes concerning the symptoms of parastomal hernia are lacking in the existing literature., Objective: The aim of this study was to perform a post hoc analysis of the patients presenting parastomal hernia from the GRECCAR 7 (Groupe de recherche sur la chirurgie du cancer du rectum) randomized clinical trials cohort on whether the presence or the absence of the mesh influenced the symptoms, the quality of life, and complications of patients with parastomal hernias., Design: We studied the parastomal hernia-related symptoms among the 2 groups of the GRECCAR 7 randomized clinical trial, with or without prophylactic mesh at the time of the index surgery., Settings: Data were retrospectively extracted and analyzed from the GRECCAR 7 database., Patients: Patients diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the 2 years of the GRECCAR 7 study., Main Outcome Measures: Several prospectively collected data about the symptoms were studied among this population. We also studied the average interval between parastomal hernia repair surgery and both index surgery and diagnosis of parastomal hernia., Results: Among the 199 patients included in the GRECCAR study, 36 patients (35.6%) in the nonmesh group and 33 patients (33.7%) in the mesh group were diagnosed with clinical and/or radiological parastomal hernia at 2-year follow-up, without a statistically significant difference ( p = 0.89). None of the studied symptoms showed any statistically significant difference between the groups., Limitations: This study relies on a relatively small number of patients, and although data were prospectively collected, we lacked some details about the categorization of parastomal hernias., Conclusions: We believe that the use of a prosthetic mesh in a sublay position to prevent parastomal hernia in terminal end colostomy patients should no longer be recommended. See Video Abstract ., Efecto De La Malla Preventiva Retromuscular Para Colostoma Terminal Con Respecto a Los Sntomas Y La Calidad De Vida En Pacientes Con Hernia Paraestomal Un Anlisis Posthoc De La Cohorte Greccar: ANTECEDENTES:Los recientes metaanálisis y ensayos clínicos aleatorizados confirman que el uso de una malla profiláctica no reduce significativamente la tasa de hernia paraestomal. En la literatura existente faltan datos sobre los beneficios de estas mallas en relación con los síntomas de la hernia paraestomal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis post-hoc de los pacientes que presentaron hernia paraestomal de la cohorte de 7 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados GRECCAR sobre si la presencia o ausencia de la malla influyó en los síntomas, la calidad de vida y las complicaciones de los pacientes con hernias paraestomales.DISEÑO:Estudiamos los síntomas relacionados con la hernia paraestomal entre los dos grupos del ensayo clínico aleatorizado GRECCAR 7, con o sin malla profiláctica en el momento de la cirugía índice.AJUSTES:Los datos fueron extraídos y analizados de manera retrospectiva de la base de datos GRECCAR 7.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal durante los dos años del estudio GRECCAR 7.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se estudiaron varios datos recopilados de manera prospectiva sobre los síntomas en esta población. También estudiamos el intervalo promedio entre la cirugía reparadora de la hernia paraestomal así como también la cirugía índice como el diagnóstico de la hernia paraestomal.RESULTADOS:De entre los 199 pacientes incluidos en el estudio GRECCAR, 36 pacientes (35,6%) fueron diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal de manera clínica y/o radiológica en el grupo sin malla a los 2 años de seguimiento y 33 (33,7%) en el grupo con malla, sin diferencia estadísticamente significativa ( p = 0,89). Ninguno de los síntomas estudiados mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se basa en un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes y, aunque los datos fueron recopilados de forma prospectiva, nos faltaron algunos detalles sobre la categorización de las hernias paraestomales.CONCLUSIONES:Creemos que ya no se debe recomendar el uso de una malla protésica en posición retromuscular para prevenir la hernia paraestomal en pacientes con colostomía terminal. (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto )., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2024.)

Background: Parastomal hernia is a major long-term complication after abdominoperineal resection. Extraperitoneal colostomy has been proposed as an effective step for parastomal hernia prevention, but it has not been widely used as it is technically demanding and time-consuming. We proposed a modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation by entering the extraperitoneal space through the arcuate line of the posterior rectus sheath., Objective: To evaluate the safety, difficulty, and efficacy of long-term parastomal hernia prevention of the modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation compared with the conventional transperitoneal colostomy approach., Design: This was a retrospective evaluation of a surgical and video database., Settings: This was a single-institution retrospective study., Patients: Clinical data of 74 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection surgery from January 2019 to January 2020 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, were retrospectively reviewed., Main Outcome Measures: Baseline characteristics, time required for colostomy creation (from skin incision to colostomy maturation), perioperative complications, and long-term colostomy-related complications were compared., Results: Baseline characteristics did not differ between the 2 approaches. The BMI level ranged from 19.5 to 29.4 for patients undergoing extraperitoneal approach. Time required for colostomy creation median [interquartile range], (22 [21-25] minutes for extraperitoneal vs 23 [21-25] minutes for transperitoneal, p = 0.861) were comparable between the 2 approaches. The cumulative incidence of parastomal hernia was significantly greater with transperitoneal colostomy than extraperitoneal colostomy at 2 and 3 years postoperatively (16.2% vs 0%, p = 0.025, and 21.6% vs 0%, p = 0.005). The remaining perioperative complications and long-term colostomy-related complications did not differ between the 2 approaches., Limitations: This study is limited by its retrospective design and small sample size., Conclusions: The modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation is safe, technically simple, and effective for long-term parastomal hernia prevention in patients with a BMI of 19.5 to 29.4., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2023.)

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.

Background: Prophylactic placement of a mesh has been suggested to prevent parastomal hernia, but evidence to support this approach is scarce., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic placement of a prophylactic, dual-component, intraperitoneal onlay mesh around a colostomy is safe and prevents parastomal hernia formation after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection., Design: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial., Settings: This study was conducted at 2 university and 3 central Finnish hospitals., Patients: From 2010 to 2013, 83 patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer were recruited. After withdrawals and exclusions, the outcome of 70 patients, 35 patients in each study group, could be examined., Interventions: In the intervention group, an end colostomy was created with placement of a intraperitoneal, dual-component onlay mesh and compared with a group with a traditional stoma., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were the incidence of clinically and radiologically detected parastomal hernias and their extent 12 months after surgery. Stoma-related morbidity and the need for surgical repair of parastomal hernia were secondary outcome measures., Results: Parastomal hernia was observed by clinical inspection in 5 intervention patients (14.3%) and in 12 control patients (32.3%; p = 0.049). Surgical repair of parastomal hernia was performed in 1 control patient (3.2%) and in none of the patients in the intervention group. CT detected parastomal hernia in 18 intervention patients (51.4%) and in 17 control patients (53.1%; p = 1.00). The extent of hernias was similar according to European Hernia Society classification (p = 0.41). Colostomy-related morbidity (32.3% vs 14.3%; p = 0.140) did not differ between the study groups., Limitations: The study was limited by its small size and short follow-up time., Conclusions: Prophylactic laparoscopic placement of intraperitoneal onlay mesh does not significantly reduce the overall risk of radiologically detected parastomal hernia after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. However, prophylactic mesh repair was associated with significantly lower risk of clinically detected parastomal hernia.

Background: A large proportion of patients with a colostomy or an ileostomy develop parastomal hernias. The placement of a reinforcing material at the stoma site may reduce parastomal hernia incidence., Objective: We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of stoma reinforcement with sublay placement of non-cross-linked porcine-derived acellular dermal matrix at the time of stoma construction., Design: This is a randomized, patient- and third-party assessor-blind, controlled trial., Settings: This study took place in colorectal/general surgery institutions., Interventions: Patients were prospectively randomly assigned to undergo standard end-stoma construction with or without porcine-derived acellular dermal matrix reinforcement., Patients: Patients undergoing construction of a permanent stoma were eligible. A total of 113 patients (59 men, 54 women; mean age, 60 years; mean BMI, 25.4 kg/m) participated: 58 controls and 55 with reinforcement., Main Outcomes Measures: The incidence of parastomal hernia, safety, and stoma-related quality of life were assessed., Results: Intraoperative complications and blood loss were similar between groups. Quality-of-life scores were similar through 24 months of follow-up. At 24 months of follow-up, the incidence of parastomal hernias was similar for both groups (12.2% of the porcine-derived acellular dermal matrix group and 13.2% of controls)., Limitations: Study limitations include the inclusion of ileostomy and colostomy patients, open and laparoscopic techniques, and small numbers of patients at follow-up., Conclusions: Safety and quality-of-life data from this randomized control trial show similar outcomes in both groups. Prosthetic reinforcement of stomas was safe, but it did not significantly reduce the incidence of parastomal hernia formation., Clinical Trial Registration: Identification no. NCT00771407.

Background: The prevalence of a paracolostomy hernia has been reported to be from 10% to 50%, with serious impairment of the quality of life and sometimes life-threatening morbidity in some cases. Most essential in avoiding the need for further treatment of an end-sigmoid colostomy is prevention of a parastomal hernia., Objective: We examined the effects of the extraperitoneal route for stoma creation to prevent parastomal hernia after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal neoplasms., Design: This is a study of a retrospective cohort., Setting and Patients: Data on a total 37 consecutive patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection from March 2005 to December 2010 in Kochi Health Sciences Center were examined retrospectively in this study. Group A included 22 patients whose stoma was created through the extraperitoneal route, and group B included 15 patients whose stoma was created through the transperitoneal route., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were the rate of parastomal hernia determined through CT and clinical examinations in the 2 groups., Results: In Group A, 1 case was diagnosed as having a parastomal hernia, whereas, in Group B, 5 cases were diagnosed by CT examination as having a parastomal hernia; the difference in incidence between the 2 groups was significant (p = 0.0305). Furthermore, median duration of the follow-up period between the latest CT examination and the primary operation was 722 days in group A, which was significantly longer than that in group B (442 days) (p = 0.001)., Limitations: : This study was limited by its nonrandomized retrospective design., Conclusion: Group B developed parastomal hernia more frequently within a significantly shorter period. A permanent sigmoid colostomy created through the extraperitoneal route can prevent the incidence of parastomal hernia after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

Introduction: Parastomal hernias occur frequently after placement of a permanent colostomy. Preliminary reports have shown a beneficial effect of placing a mesh at the primary operation to prevent the formation of a parastomal hernia. We studied the safety and prophylactic effect of placing a newly designed polypropylene mesh in an onlay position at the primary operation., Methods: This was a prospective study that included 25 patients scheduled for elective colorectal surgery. Risk factors for development of parastomal hernia were recorded before surgery. A prepared lasercut polypropylene mesh with six "arms" was placed in an onlay position. Immediate and long-term complications were evaluated by an experienced stoma nurse and a surgeon. Abdominal ultrasound was performed at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Parastomal hernia was defined as both clinical and ultrasonographic signs of protrusion in the vicinity of the stoma., Results: The median follow-up time was 12 (range, 2-26) months. One patient died eight days after surgery. Of the 24 patients included, none had infections or immediate complications after surgery. Two patients had minor complications necessitating a local revision of one of the mesh arms. No other long-term complication was found. Two patients had signs of parastomal hernia at 6 and 12 months follow-up, respectively., Conclusions: Placement of a polypropylene mesh in an onlay position at the primary operation is a safe procedure and probably results in a low risk of parastomal hernia occurrence.

Purpose: Historically, there has been reluctance to use nonabsorbable synthetic mesh for repair of abdominal-wall defects in an operative field in which the presence of open bowel is accompanied by the potential for contamination. Some believe the risk of wound infection and mesh removal in this setting to be unacceptably high. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nonabsorbable mesh used for hernia repair in the presence of a stoma or at the time of colon resection., Methods: All patients undergoing elective surgical implantation of mesh with concomitant open bowel from 1987 to 2001 were retrospectively reviewed. Computer database identified all patients undergoing parastomal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair with a stoma present, hernia repair with concomitant bowel resection, and colostomy closure with repair of hernia. No patients so identified were excluded. Follow-up was attained on all patients by chart review and telephone survey. The data was statistically analyzed by chi-squared test using a P value of <0.05 for statistical significance., Results: Twenty-nine patients were identified as having undergone 30 elective hernia repairs using nonabsorbable mesh. The repairs were performed in the presence of a stoma or in conjunction with bowel resection. All patients received bowel preparation. Included were 11 patients undergoing parastomal hernia repair (37 percent), 14 patients undergoing ventral hernia repair in the setting of open bowel (47 percent), and 5 patients in whom mesh repair of ventral and parastomal hernias were performed simultaneously (16 percent). Hernias recurred in 13 patients (43 percent). Overall recurrence for mesh repair at a parastomal site was 63 percent; overall recurrence at an incisional hernia site was 21 percent. The risk of wound complications after mesh placement in the setting of open bowel was assessed. Wound seromas developed after surgery in four patients (13 percent). Seromas were all treated successfully by aspiration. Wound infections occurred after surgery in two patients (7 percent). Wound infection occurred exclusively in sites of parastomal repair representing 2 of 16 (13 percent) of parastomal hernia sites. Infection with fistula necessitated mesh removal in one of these two cases. No chronic sinuses were observed. Incidences of recurrence and wound infection were statistically independent of type of hernia, variety of mesh, or operative approach., Conclusion: After bowel preparation, nonabsorbable mesh can be used for elective repair of incisional hernia in the presence of open bowel with an expectation of minor morbidity, minimal risk of infection, and an acceptable rate of recurrence. Nonabsorbable mesh can be used for elective repair of parastomal hernia in a similar setting with a low risk of infection independent of surgical approach. Although safe, local mesh repair of parastomal hernia was, in this study, accompanied by a high rate of recurrence.

Purpose: Parastomal hernia formation commonly complicates permanent stomas and represents a significant and frequently recurrent management problem, regardless of the method of repair. Prosthetic material reinforcement of parastomal tissues offers the best results. However, problems with unravelling of mesh fibers along cut margins leading to aperture enlargement and hernia recurrence may occur. Raised intra-abdominal pressure in the early postoperative period before incorporation of the mesh into surrounding tissues may result in hernia formation if the aperture size in the mesh increases., Methods: Assessment of the physical properties of Marlex mesh was performed in a materials testing laboratory, using standardized tests to simulate the stresses imposed on in situ mesh., Results: Holes cut in Marlex mesh were found to enlarge and distort at loads simulating intra-abdominal pressure changes. Reinforcement with a polypropylene pursestring suture was found to stabilize the periaperture mesh fibers and maintain the original area throughout tensions at least double maximal intra-abdominal pressures. Distensibility of intact sheets of mesh was found to vary by up to 100 percent, depending on the direction of the applied tension, and thus, mesh orientation in hernia repair has major implications., Conclusion: We propose that if mesh is used to reinforce abdominal wall tissues and is cut or fashioned to size, then the cut margins must be reinforced if the intended dimensions and functional integrity of the mesh are to be maintained.

Purpose: In a previous, prospective, randomized study of the use of nasogastric tubes in patients undergoing elective abdominal colorectal surgery, we found that patients who did not have nasogastric (NG) decompression postoperatively had a significantly higher rate of abdominal distention, nausea, and vomiting. Patients from that study have now been followed for a median duration of 5.3 years to evaluate whether this elevation in perioperative intra-abdominal pressure would subsequently lead to an increased incidence of incisional hernia., Results: Of the 251 patients who received NG decompression, 8 (3.2 percent) developed incisional hernias compared with 15 (6.6 percent) of 229 patients who were not decompressed (P = 0.085)., Conclusion: The increase in postoperative abdominal distention and vomiting that occurs in patients who do not receive NG decompression does not lead to a significantly increased incidence of incisional hernia. Furthermore, we continue to support avoidance of routine prophylactic postoperative nasogastric decompression in uncomplicated, elective abdominal colorectal surgery.