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.)

Purpose: Parastomal hernia (PH) stands out as a prevalent complication following end colostomies, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Various surgical strategies, predominantly involving prophylactic mesh deployment, have been explored with variable outcomes. This study details our experience and mid-term outcomes utilizing a funnel-shaped mesh., Methods: A single-center, prospective, non-randomized, observational study examined consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery with end colostomy, incorporating a 3D-funnel mesh from January 2019 to December 2021 (PM group). A historical cohort of patients with end colostomy without prophylactic mesh served as the comparison (C group). Postoperative morbidity within 30 days was documented, and clinical examinations and radiological tests were employed for parastomal hernia diagnosis during follow-up., Results: Seventy-two patients participated, with thirty-four in the PM group and thirty-eight in the C group. The PM group experienced 16 postoperative complications, unrelated to the mesh, while the C group recorded 20 complications (p = 0.672). Median follow-up was 22.06 months for the PM group and 63.18 months for the C group. The PM group exhibited a lower parastomal hernia incidence during follow-up (8.8%) compared to the C group(68.4%) (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Prophylactic use of a 3D-funnel mesh appears effective in reducing parastomal hernia incidence in the short and mid-term, without an associated increase in postoperative morbidity., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Although extraperitoneal colostomy could reduce the risk for parastomal hernia formation, it is often technically demanding to dissect the extraperitoneal route laparoscopically. Here, we demonstrate our original surgical technique for extraperitoneal tunneling using a robotic instrument., Materials and Surgical Technique: After total mesorectal excision (TME) and before specimen retrieval, the edge of the outer leaf of the parietal peritoneum was elevated by the grasper in the left hand and the tip-up fenestrated grasper (Tip-Up) in the right hand. The extraperitoneal tissue was opened using the scissor forceps (right hand). Then, extraperitoneal tunneling (inner tunnel) was performed using a Tip-Up with a width of approximately 4 cm that could reach adjacent to the lateral border of the abdominal rectus muscle. A round incision was made at a preoperatively marked site on the skin. The anterior rectal sheath was cut in a cruciate fashion. The abdominal rectus muscle was split, and then the posterior rectus sheath was cut longitudinally not just below the stoma marking site but also at a slant on the lateral side. The peritoneum was dissected with care to avoid opening the peritoneum. The outer side of the tunnel was broken through to the inner tunnel using an easy blunt dissection with two fingers. Kelly forceps were introduced through the extraperitoneal tunnel along with the fingers, and the stump of the sigmoid colon was grasped and exteriorized through this tunnel., Discussion: Robotic retroperitoneal tunneling using a Tip-Up is easy and useful for preventing parastomal hernia., (© 2020 Asia Endosurgery Task Force and Japan Society of Endoscopic Surgery and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: The use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy procedures has been shown to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia. However, the degree to which the practice has been adopted clinically remains unknown. We conducted a study to evaluate the current opinions and practice patterns of Canadian and US colorectal surgeons with regard to the use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy., Methods: Between May and July 2017, we conducted an internet-based survey of colorectal surgeons in Canada and the United States (selected at random). Using a questionnaire designed and tested for this study, we assessed the rate of mesh use, types of mesh and placement techniques, and perceived barriers and facilitators associated with the practice., Results: Forty-eight (51.6%) of 93 invited Canadian surgeons and 253 (16.6%) of 1521 invited US surgeons responded (overall response rate 18.6%). Of the 301 respondents, 32 (10.6%) were currently using mesh, 32 (10.6%) had previously used mesh, and 237 (78.7%) had never used mesh. Of 29 respondents currently using mesh, 12 (41.4%) used it only in selected patients; the majority used a sublay technique (20 [69.0%]) and biologic mesh (17 [58.6%]). Most respondents agreed that parastomal hernias are common and negatively affect quality of life; however, there remained concerns about evidence quality and the perceived risk associated with mesh among those who had never or had previously used mesh., Conclusion: Prophylactic mesh placement remains relatively uncommon; when used, biologic mesh was the most common type. Many surgeons were not convinced of the safety or efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement., Competing Interests: None declared., (© 2019 Joule Inc. or its licensors)

Introduction: Developing a parastomal hernia can lead to emergency surgery and cause discomfort. Placing a pro-phylactic mesh around the ostomy may potentially prevent hernias from developing. Randomised clinical trials and reviews have reported contradictory results from this prophylactic procedure with different rates of hernias and success. This descriptive cohort study aimed to investigate the rate of parastomal hernia after applying prophylactic mesh in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer., Methods: In the period from 2010 to 2016, we included 133 patients who had a permanent colostomy with prophylactic mesh placement due to rectal cancer. The patients were seen in the ostomy ambulatory at least three times annually, and bulges and hernias were registered by a trained nurse. Computed tomography was used for verification of parastomal hernia. Data were registered retrospectively from patient files., Results: After a median follow-up of 22 months, 24% of patients developed a parastomal hernia. Development of parastomal bulge without a subsequent hernia diagnosis was seen in 21%. The one-year rate of parastomal hernia was 9.7%., Conclusions: This cohort study supports the thesis of a low short-time rate of parastomal hernia in patients who had a prophylactic mesh placed during the ostomy formation and indicates that the rate of hernia increases over time after the first post-operative year., Funding: none., Trial Registration: not relevant., (Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.)

European Hernia Society issued a guideline for the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias in 2017, which is the first international guideline for the parastomal hernia. This guideline proposed 12 problems about incidence, diagnosis and treatment, and discussed these problems in depth. The main contents of this guideline are summarized as follows: (1) End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia compared to other types of stomas. (2) Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. (3) The use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting is recommended. (4) There is insufficient evidence on the policy in watchful waiting. (5) There is insufficient evidence on the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. (6) 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.(7) It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. (8) So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, most data in this guideline were retrospective without high level evidence. A lot of questions remain controversial and more high-level evidence are expected to solve these problems.

Purpose: Parastomal hernia is a frequent complication of an abdominal wall stoma. Surgical repairs have high complication and recurrence rates. Several different techniques have been suggested to prevent parastomal hernia during stoma creation. The aim of the present case-control study was to evaluate the efficacy of modified Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) for prevention of parastomal hernia compared with conventional colostomy formation in patients who underwent open or laparoscopic rectal resection and end colostomy for cancer., Methods and Materials: Between January 2014 and May 2016, all consecutive patients who underwent open or laparoscopic resection and end colostomy for primary or recurrent rectal cancer were identified from a prospectively collected database. Since January 2014, one surgeon in our team has routinely offered modified SMART procedure to all patients who are candidates for permanent terminal colostomy. In the SMART group patients, while creating an end colostomy, we placed a standard polypropylene mesh in the retromuscular position, fixed and cut the mesh by firing a 31- or 33-mm-diameter circular stapler and constructed the stoma. In the control group, a stoma was created conventionally by a longitudinal or transverse incision of the rectus abdominis sheath sufficiently large for the colon to pass through., Results: Twenty-nine patients underwent parastomal hernia prophylaxis with modified SMART and 38 patients underwent end-colostomy formation without prophylaxis (control group). Groups were similar in terms of age, sex and underlying conditions predisposing to herniation. Median follow-up time is 27 (range 12-41) months. Nineteen patients (28.4%) developed parastomal herniation. In the SMART group, 4 patients (13.8%) developed parastomal herniation which is significantly lower than the control group in which 15 patients (39.5%) developed parastomal herniation (p = 0.029). We did not observe mesh infection, stenosis, erosion or fistulation in the SMART group. One patient in the control group underwent surgical correction of stoma stricture, another patient underwent surgery for stoma prolapse and four patients underwent surgery for parastomal herniation., Conclusion: New systemic reviews and meta-analysis support parastomal hernia prevention with the use of a prophylactic mesh. Until more evidence is available, prophylactic mesh should be routinely offered to all patients undergoing permanent stoma formation. SMART is easy to use, safe and effective for paracolostomy hernia prophylaxis.

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.

Purpose: Parastomal hernia remains a frequent complication following creation of an abdominal stoma. Previous interests have centred around the exploration of methods to repair; however, prophylactic mesh placement has demonstrated its efficacy in reduction of parastomal hernia. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) in terms of parastomal hernia occurrence rate and mesh-related complications., Methods and Materials: All patients operated with an abdominal perineal resection or Hartmann's procedure with SMART from November 2013 to March 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative details and stoma-related symptoms were collected. Patients were examined clinically by the medical team and also reviewed independently by a specialist stoma care nurse for signs of stoma-related complications. As part of oncological follow-up, CT scans were available for review for evidence of parastomal herniation., Results: 14 patients (mean age 76 years) were included in the analysis. All the SMART cases were successfully completed with no intraoperative or immediate post-operative complications. No cases of mesh-related complications such as infection, immediate stomal prolapse, stenosis, retraction, stomal obstruction, mesh erosion or fistulation were observed. No mesh removal was required. There were two cases of parastomal hernia detected on CT scan. Both cases have remained asymptomatic no intervention was required at this stage. Median follow-up was 24 months., Conclusion: Our medium-term experience has demonstrated the efficacy of SMART in the reduction of parastomal hernia occurrence. With appropriate learning curve, parastomal hernia can be prevented.

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.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of parastomal hernias (PSHs) after end-colostomy formation using a polypropylene mesh in a randomized controlled trial versus conventional colostomy formation., Background: A PSH is the most frequent complication after stoma formation. Symptoms may range from mild abdominal pain to life-threatening obstruction and strangulation. The treatment of a PSH is notoriously difficult and recurrences up to 20% have been reported despite the use of mesh. This has moved surgical focus toward prevention., Methods: Augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retro-muscular lightweight polypropylene mesh was compared with the traditional formation of a colostomy. In total, 150 patients (1:1 ratio) were included. The incidence of a PSH, morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness was measured after 1 year of follow-up., Results: There was no difference between groups regarding demographics and predisposing factors for PSH. Three out of 67 patients (4.5%) in the mesh group and 16 out of 66 patients (24.2%) in the nonmesh group developed a PSH (P = 0.0011). No statistically significant difference was found in infections, concomitant hernias, SF-36 questionnaire, Von Korff pain score, and cost-effectiveness between both study groups., Conclusion: Prophylactic augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular lightweight polypropylene mesh at the ostomy site significantly reduces the incidence of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

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.

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: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a very frequent complication after creation of a permanent colostomy. The aim of that study is to assess the safety and the long-term efficacy of an intra-peritoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) positioned at the time of primary stoma formation to prevent PSH occurrence., Materials and Methods: That multicentre prospective study concerned 29 consecutive patients operated for cancer of the low rectum between 2008 and 2014. There were 14 men and 15 women with a median age of 73 years (range 39-88) and a BMI of 28 (range 21-43). All the patients had potentially curative abdominoperineal excision associated with IPOM reinforcement of the abdominal wall with a round non-slit composite mesh centred on the stoma site and covering the lateralized colon according to the modified Sugarbaker technique. The major outcomes analysed were operative time, complications related to mesh and PSH incidence. Patients were evaluated at 6-month intervals for the first 2 years and thereafter annually with physical examination and CT scan control. For PSH evaluation, we used the classification of Moreno-Matias., Results: Surgery was performed by laparoscopy in 24 patients and by laparotomy in 5; 17 had a trans-peritoneal colostomy and 12 an extra-peritoneal colostomy. The median size of the mesh was 15 cm (range 12-20), the operative time 225 min. (range 123-311) and the specific time for mesh placement 15 min. (range 10-30). With a median follow-up of 48 months (range 6-88), no mesh infection or complication requiring mesh removal were recorded. No patient developed a true PSH; two of them had a type Ia PSH (only containing the bowel forming the colostomy with a sac < 5 cm) and were totally asymptomatic., Conclusion: In our series, the incidence of PSH was 7 % and no specific mesh-related complication was noted. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement according to the modified Sugarbaker is an effective technique that addresses the issues related to the occurrence of PSH.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia (PH) after placement of prophylactic synthetic mesh using a modified Sugarbaker technique when a permanent end-colostomy is needed., Summary of Background Data: Prevention of PH formation is crucial given the high prevalence of PH and difficulties in the surgical repair of PH., Methods: A randomized, prospective, double-blind, and controlled trial. Rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy were randomized (1 : 1) to the mesh and nonmesh arms. In the mesh group, a large-pore lightweight composite mesh was placed in the intraperitoneal/onlay fashion using a modified Sugarbaker technique. PH was detected by computed tomography (CT) after a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Analysis was per-protocol., Results: The mesh group included 24 patients and the control group 28. Preoperative data, surgical time, and postoperative morbidity were similar. The median follow-up was 26 months. After CT examination, 6 of 24 PHs (25%) were observed in the mesh group compared with 18 of 28 (64.3%) in the nonmesh group (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.82; P = 0.005). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences in favor of the mesh group (long-rank = 4.21, P = 0.04). The number needed to treat was 2.5, which confirmed the effectiveness of the intervention., Conclusions: Placement of a prosthetic mesh by the laparoscopic approach following the modified Sugarbaker technique is safe and effective in the prevention of PH, reducing significantly the incidence of PH.

Background: Parastomal hernia is a very common complication after colostomy, especially end-colostomy. It is unclear whether prophylactic placement of mesh at the time of stoma formation could prevent parastomal hernia formation after surgery for rectal cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh in end-colostomy construction., Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched, covering records entered from their inception to September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stoma with mesh to stoma without mesh after surgery for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of parastomal hernia. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were obtained using random effects models., Results: Six RCTs containing 309 patients were included. Parastomal hernia occurred in 24.4 % (38 of 156) of patients with mesh and 50.3 % (77 of 153) of patients without mesh. Meta-analysis showed a lower incidence of parastomal hernia (RR, 0.42; 95 % CI 0.22-0.82) and reoperation related to parastomal hernia (RR, 0.23; 95 % CI 0.06-0.89) in patients with mesh. Stoma-related morbidity was similar between mesh group and non-mesh group (RR, 0.65; 95 % CI 0.33-1.30)., Conclusions: Prophylactic placement of a mesh at the time of a stoma formation seems to be associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia and reoperation related to parastomal hernia after surgery for rectal cancer, but not the rate of stoma-related morbidity. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity among the studies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Purpose: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication after colostomy formation. Recent studies indicate that mesh implantation during formation of a colostomy might prevent a PSH. To determine if placement of a retromuscular mesh at the colostomy site is a feasible, safe and effective procedure in preventing a parastomal hernia, we performed a multicentre randomized controlled trial in 11 large teaching hospitals and three university centres in The Netherlands., Methods: Augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular light-weight polypropylene mesh (Parietene Light™, Covidien) around the trephine was compared with traditional colostomy formation. Patients undergoing elective open formation of a permanent end-colostomy were eligible. 150 patients were randomized between 2010 and 2012. Primary endpoint of the PREVENT trial is the incidence of parastomal hernia. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, pain, quality of life, mortality and cost-effectiveness. This article focussed on the early results of the PREVENT trial and, therefore, operation time, postoperative morbidity, pain, and quality of life were measured., Results: Outcomes represent results after 3 months of follow-up. A total of 150 patients were randomized. Mean operation time of the mesh group (N = 72) was significantly longer than in the control group (N = 78) (182.6 vs. 156.8 min; P = 0.018). Four (2.7 %) peristomal infections occurred of which one (1.4 %) in the mesh group. No infection of the mesh occurred. Most of the other infections were infections of the perineal wound, equally distributed over both groups. No statistical differences were discovered in stoma or mesh-related complications, fistula or stricture formation, pain, or quality of life., Conclusions: During open and elective formation of an end-colostomy, primary placement of a retromuscular light-weight polypropylene mesh for prevention of a parastomal hernia is a safe and feasible procedure. The PREVENT trial is registered at: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2018 .

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., (Colorectal Disease © 2015 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

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.

Objective: To show our results with the use of a polypropylene mesh at the stoma site, as prophylaxis of parastomal hernias in patients with rectal cancer when a terminal colostomy is performed., Methods: From January 2010 until March 2014, 45 consecutive patients with rectal cancer, underwent surgical treatment with the need of a terminal colostomy. A prophylactic mesh was placed in a sublay position at the stoma site in all cases. We analyze Demographics, technical issues and effectiveness of the procedure, as well as subsequent complications., Results: A prophylactic mesh was placed in 45 patients, 35 male and 10 females, mean age of 66.2 (47-88) and Body Mass Index 29.19 (20.4-40.6). A total of 7 middle rectal carcinoma, 36 low rectal carcinoma, one rectal melanoma and one squamous cell anal carcinoma were electively treated with identical protocol. Abdominoperineal resection was performed in 38 patients, and low anterior resection with terminal colostomy in 7. An open approach was elected in 39 patients and laparoscopy in 6, with 2 conversions to open surgery. Medium follow up was 22 months (2.1-53). Overall, 3 parastomal hernias (6.66%) were found, one of which was a radiological finding with no clinical significance. No complications related to the mesh or the colostomy were found., Conclusions: The use of a prophylactic polypropylene mesh placed in a sublay position at the stoma site is a safe and feasible technique. It lowers the incidence of parastomal hernias with no increased morbidity., (Copyright © 2014 AEC. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

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: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is common after stoma formation. Studies have reported that mesh prophylaxis reduces PSH, but there are no cost-effectiveness data. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis to prevent PSH in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy for rectal cancer., Study Design: Using a cohort Markov model, we modeled the costs and effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis at the index operation in a cohort of 60-year-old patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer during a time horizon of 5 years. Costs were expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars (CAD$) and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: In patients with stage I to III rectal cancer, prophylactic mesh was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared with no mesh. In patients with stage IV disease, mesh prophylaxis was associated with higher cost (CAD$495 more) and minimally increased effectiveness (0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAD$10,818 per quality-adjusted life year. On sensitivity analyses, the decision was sensitive to the probability of mesh infection and the cost of the mesh, and method of diagnosing PSH., Conclusions: In patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy for rectal cancer, mesh prophylaxis might be the less costly and more effective strategy compared with no mesh to prevent PSH in patients with stage I to III disease, and might be cost effective in patients with stage IV disease., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The high incidence of parastomal hernia and the controversy surrounding its repair make its prevention an area of intense research. The aim of this article is to describe the modified Sugarbaker technique with a new mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia using a laparoscopic approach., (Copyright © 2012 AEC. Published by Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

Although extraperitoneal colostomy is often performed to prevent postoperative parastomal hernia formation following an open abdominoperineal resection of lower rectal cancer, it has not been widely employed laparoscopically because of the difficulty associated with the extraperitoneal route. This paper describes a laparoscopic extraperitoneal sigmoid colostomy using the Endo Retract™ Maxi instrument. This surgical technique is easy, and helps to prevent the development of parastomal hernias.

Background: Parastomal hernia is a common complication of a colostomy. Ultimately, one-third of patients with a parastomal hernia will need surgical correction due to frequent leakage or life-threatening bowel obstruction or strangulation. However, treatment remains a challenge resulting in high recurrence rates. Two single center trials demonstrated that the frequency of parastomal hernias decreases by prophylactic placement of a mesh around the stoma at the time of formation. Unfortunately, both studies were small-sized, single-center studies and with these small numbers less common complications could be missed which were the reasons to initiate a prospective randomized multicenter trial to determine if a retromuscular, preperitoneal mesh at the stoma site prevents parastomal hernia and does not cause unacceptable complications., Methods: One hundred and fifty patients undergoing open procedure, elective formation of a permanent end-colostomy will be randomized into two groups. In the intervention group an end-colostomy is created with placement of a preperitioneal, retromuscular lightweight monofilament polypropylene mesh, and compared to a group with a traditional stoma without mesh. Patients will be recruited from 14 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands during a 2-year period. Primary endpoint is the incidence of parastomal hernia. Secondary endpoints are stoma complications, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life. Follow-up will be performed at 3 weeks, 3 months and at 1, 2, and 5 years. To find a difference of 20% with a power of 90%, a total number of 134 patients must be included. All results will be reported according to the CONSORT 2010 statement., Discussion: The PREVENT-trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial powered to determine whether prophylactic placement of a polypropylene mesh decreases the incidence of a parastomal hernia versus the traditional stoma formation without a mesh., Trial Registration: The PREVENT-trial is registered at: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2018.

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.

Parastomal hernia (PH) is the most common delayed complication in stoma surgery. Only a third of these are operated on, something which is partly explained by the high recurrence rate observed after repair. The use of prosthetic materials has improved the results, although they continue to be below the ideal. For this reason, it has been proposed that the best solution may be in preventing the PH. Several studies show promising results, with very marked reductions in the percentage of IH, on placing a prophylactic peristomal prosthesis. In this article we present a review of the risk factors associated with PH, a classification of the existing diversity of repair techniques, and an algorithm is proposed for the management of PH, including its prevention., (Copyright (c) 2009 AEC. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Background: Parastomal hernia is a major clinical problem. In a randomized, clinical trial, a prosthetic mesh in a sublay position at the index operation reduced the rate of parastomal hernia at 12-month follow-up, without any increase in the rate of complications. This study was designed to evaluate the rate of complications after 5 years., Methods: Between January 2001 and April 2003, 54 patients who had a permanent ostomy were randomized to a conventional stoma or to a stoma with the addition of a mesh in a sublay position. A large-pore, lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content and a high proportion of absorbable material was used., Results: After 5 years, 21 patients with a conventional stoma were alive and parastomal herniation was recorded in 17 patients, of whom repair had been demanded in 5. In 15 patients operated on with the addition of a mesh herniation, that did not require repair, was present in 2 (P<0.001). No fistulas or strictures developed. No mesh infection was noted and no mesh was removed during the study period., Conclusions: At stoma formation, a prophylactic low-weight mesh in a sublay position is a safe procedure that reduces the rate of parastomal hernia.

Despite the progress concerning operative techniques, parastomal hernias remain a surgical challenge. The high risk for recurrence demands precise indications for operative repair. Mesh implants reduce the recurrence rate. Among such procedures, the retromuscular mesh augmentation represents an established method, whereas the value of other techniques still has to be defined. Also, the prophylactic use of meshes is able to reduce the incidence of parastomal hernias. With regard to short- and long-term complications, their general recommendation must be proven in further studies.

Background: Hernias around ostomies are a very common complication, exceeding 50%. Only a few studies deal with the prophylactic use of mesh to prevent parastomal hernia revealing promising results., Patients and Methods: Twenty-two patients undergoing elective rectal surgery with a permanent colostomy--one with an ileostomy and two needing surgical correction of a preexisting colostomy--were enrolled in a prospective study. A specially designed mesh made of polyvinylidene fluoride with a central whole and a funnel arising (Dynamesh IPST) was prophylactically implanted using an intraperitoneal onlay technique. The patients were followed for a median of 11 (range 2-19) months by clinical examination every 3 months., Results: No infection or any other adverse effect was observed, and no parastomal hernia or stoma protrusion could be detected clinically. Twelve patients had a routine computed tomography after 6 months, which also excluded any hernia formation., Conclusion: The prophylactic use of Dynamesh IPST) is a safe and effective procedure preventing stoma complications such as hernia formation or prolapse, at least in the short run.

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.

Risk may be defined as 'the chance that something may happen to cause loss or an adverse effect' (Concise Oxford Medical Dictionary, 2003). Patients undergoing stoma formation are at risk of developing a wide range of complications following surgery. A parastomal hernia is an adverse effect that can contribute to postoperative morbidity. The risk of developing a parastomal hernia is dependent upon a number of variables, and stoma care nurses need to be aware of these to plan the appropriate care for patients undergoing stoma formation. This article discusses the issues surrounding the development of parastomal hernias and also looks at ways in which the risk factors associated with the development of a parastomal hernia may be minimized.

Hypothesis: Parastomal hernia is a common complication following colostomy. The lowest recurrence rate has been produced when repair is with a prosthetic mesh. This study evaluated the effect on stoma complications of using a mesh during the primary operation., Design: Randomized clinical study., Methods: Patients undergoing permanent colostomy were randomized to have either a conventional stoma or the addition of a mesh placed in a sublay position. The mesh used was a large-pore lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content and a high proportion of absorbable material., Results: Twenty-seven patients had a conventional stoma, and in 27 patients the mesh was used. No infection, fistula formation, or pain occurred (observation time, 12-38 months). At the 12-month follow-up, parastomal hernia was present in 13 of 26 patients without a mesh and in 1 of 21 patients in whom the mesh was used., Conclusions: A lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content and a high proportion of absorbable material placed in a sublay position at the stoma site is not associated with complications and significantly reduces the rate of parastomal hernia.

Background: Parastomal hernia is a common complication following colostomy, and repair with a prosthetic mesh is associated with the lowest recurrence rate. The aim of this study was to determine the effect on stoma complications of using a mesh at the primary operation., Methods: Patients undergoing permanent colostomy were randomized to have either a conventional stoma or the addition of a mesh placed in a sublay position. A large-pore lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content and a high proportion of absorbable material was used., Results: Twenty-seven patients were randomized to have a conventional stoma and 27 to have the mesh. No infection, fistula formation or pain occurred (observation time 2-28 months). At the 12-month follow-up, parastomal hernia was present in eight of 18 patients without a mesh and in none of 16 patients in whom the mesh was used., Conclusion: A lightweight prosthetic mesh in a sublay position at the stoma site was not associated with infection or other early complications. Preliminary results indicate that the mesh prevented the development of parastomal hernia., (Copyright 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.)

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.

Following stoma construction, parastomal hernia is the most frequent complication. Many surgical techniques have been postulated for these patients, and prosthetic surgery represents the first-choice treatment. We report our personal experience with 8 cases of parastomal hernia in patients submitted to abdominal perineal resection according to Miles, for carcinoma of the lower rectum. Polypropylene mesh was shaped according to the size of the fascial defects, characterized by a romboid incision about 4 cm in length. The mesh was placed in suprafascial position, after suturing the fascial tear. One case of wound infection occurred and, to date, none of the patients have presented with recurrence after a 3-year follow-up. In conclusion, the use of polypropylene mesh for parastomal hernia repair represents a safe and successful technique.