Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Sep;36(9):2007-2016.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-021-03924-8. Epub 2021 Apr 20.

Prophylactic mesh placement at index permanent end colostomy creation to prevent parastomal hernia-an updated meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Prophylactic mesh placement at index permanent end colostomy creation to prevent parastomal hernia-an updated meta-analysis

Shaheel M Sahebally et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Debate persists regarding the efficacy of prophylactic mesh insertion (PMI) at index permanent stoma creation to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia (PSH). This meta-analysis aimed to appraise all the latest evidence from newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PMI for PSH prevention.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles from inception until November 2020. All RCTs that reported on PMI at end colostomy creation with ≥ 12 months follow-up were included. The primary objective was the rate of clinical and radiological PSH while secondary objectives included number of PSH requiring repair and stoma (or mesh)-related complications. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates. Sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results: Eleven RCTs were included capturing 1097 patients. The mean (SD) age was 67.9 (±9.4) years. On random effects analysis, prophylactic mesh appeared to reduce the rate of both clinical (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.61, p = 0.002) and radiological (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.65, p = 0.0002) PSH. However, there was no difference in number of PSH requiring repair or stoma-related complications. On sensitivity analysis, when focusing on low-risk of bias studies, the benefit of prophylactic mesh in the retrorectus space was lost for both clinical (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.51, p = 0.89) and radiological PSH (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.18, p = 0.20).

Conclusion: PMI may reduce the rate of subsequent PSH. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings and to establish the optimal mesh position and shape before definite recommendations can be made.

Keywords: Colostomy; Hernia; Mesh; Parastomal; Prevention; Prophylaxis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pearl RK (1989) Parastomal hernias. World J Surg 13(5):569–572 - DOI
    1. Cingi A, Cakir T, Sever A, Aktan AO (2006) Enterostomy site hernias: a clinical and computerized tomographic evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum 49(10):1559–1563 - DOI
    1. Van Dijk SM, Timmermans L, Deerenberg E, Lamme B, Kleinrensink G-J, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2015) Parastomal hernia: impact on quality of life? World J Surg 39(10):2595–2601 - DOI
    1. Rieger N, Moore J, Hewett P, Lee S, Stephens J (2004) Parastomal hernia repair. Color Dis 6(3):203–205 - DOI
    1. Pastor DM, Pauli EM, Koltun WA, Haluck RS, Shope TR, Poritz LS (2009) Parastomal hernia repair: a single center experience. JSLS 13(2):170–175 - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources