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
. 2021 Oct;23(10):2627-2636.
doi: 10.1111/codi.15817. Epub 2021 Sep 4.

Prophylactic funnel mesh to prevent parastomal hernia in permanent end colostomy: A retrospective cohort study

Yanic Ammann  1 , Bernhard Widmann  1 , Moritz Sparn  1 , Rene Warschkow  1 , Michael Weitzendorfer  2 , Walter Brunner  1
Affiliations

Prophylactic funnel mesh to prevent parastomal hernia in permanent end colostomy: A retrospective cohort study

Yanic Ammann et al. Colorectal Dis. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Aim: This study assessed the impact of a prophylactic, 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh on the rate of parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal rectum resection with permanent end colostomy.

Methods: Data from 76 patients receiving permanent end colostomy after abdominoperineal rectum resection between 2013 and 2018 were collected retrospectively. Occurrences of parastomal hernia and reoperation rate due to parastomal hernia in patients with and without a prophylactic mesh were compared by univariate, multivariate, and propensity score-adjusted analyses.

Results: Twenty-two (28.9%) of the 76 included patients received a prophylactic mesh. The mean follow-up was 39.3 ± 23.8 months. Mesh implantation reduced the incidence of parastomal hernia to 9.1% (n = 2) compared to 42.6% (n = 23) in patients without a prophylactic mesh. The propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.48, p = 0.001). No reoperations due to parastomal hernia were needed in patients who received a prophylactic mesh, while nine patients without mesh (16.7%) required parastomal hernia repair (HR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.00-1.76, p = 0.015). Mesh implantation was not associated with increased short-term morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2, 31.8% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.468) or 30-day mortality (4.5% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000).

Conclusions: Prophylactic implantation of a 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh is a safe and effective method to prevent parastomal hernia in patients requiring permanent end colostomy. Mesh placement significantly reduces reoperations due to parastomal hernia.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04793009.

Keywords: abdominoperineal rectum resection; parastomal hernia; permanent end colostomy; propensity score; prophylactic funnel-shaped mesh.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Carne PWG, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA. Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg. 2003;90(7):784-93.
    1. Antoniou SA, Agresta F, Garcia Alamino JM, Berger D, Berrevoet F, Brandsma H-T, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias. Hernia. 2018;22(1):183-98.
    1. Näsvall P, Dahlstrand U, Löwenmark T, Rutegård J, Gunnarsson U, Strigård K. Quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma after rectal cancer surgery. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(1):55-64.
    1. Köhler G, Mayer F, Wundsam H, Schrittwieser R, Emmanuel K, Lechner M. Changes in the surgical management of parastomal hernias over 15 years: results of 135 cases. World J Surg. 2015;39(11):2795-804.
    1. Kald A, Juul KN, Hjortsvang H, Sjödahl RI. Quality of life is impaired in patients with peristomal bulging of a sigmoid colostomy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(5):627-33.

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources