Prophylactic retromuscular mesh placement for parastomal hernia prevention: a retrospective cohort study of permanent colostomies and ileostomies.

PURPOSE: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is the most common complication of stoma formation. The safety and efficiency of prophylactically placing mesh to prevent PSH remain controversial. To address this question, we examined the incidence of clinical and radiological PSH when using parastomal prophylactic mesh (PPM). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center, cohort study that included all patients with permanent stoma creation between 2015 and 2018. Patients were divided into two groups according to the utilization of PPM or not. RESULTS: During the study period, 185 patients had a permanent stoma created, 144 with colostomy and 41 with ileostomy. PPM was placed in 79 patients. There was no difference in the need for early surgical reintervention (p = 0.652) or rehospitalization (p = 0.314) for stoma-related complications in patients with mesh as compared with patients without. Similarly, there was no difference in operative time (p = 0.782) or in length of hospital stay (p = 0.806). No patients experienced infection of the mesh or required prosthesis removal. There was a lower incidence rate of PSH with PPM placement in patients with permanent colostomy [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.28-0.89); p = 0.018]. In contrast, a higher incidence rate of PSH was observed in patients with ileostomy and PPM [adjusted HR 5.92 (95% confidence interval 1.07-32.65); p = 0.041]. CONCLUSION: Parastomal prophylactic mesh placement to prevent PSH is a safe and efficient approach to reduce the incidence of PSH in patients requiring a permanent colostomy. However, mesh may increase the rate of PSH after permanent ileostomy.

External validation demonstrated the Ottawa SAH prediction models can identify pSAH using health administrative data.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to externally validate three primary subarachnoid hemorrhage (pSAH) identification models. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We evaluated three models that identify pSAH using recursive partitioning (A), logistic regression (B), and a prevalence-adjusted logistic regression(C), respectively. Blinded chart review and/or linkage to existing registries determined pSAH status. We included all patients aged ≥18 in four participating center registries or whose discharge abstracts contained ≥1 administrative codes of interest between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013. RESULTS: A total of 3,262 of 193,190 admissions underwent chart review (n = 2,493) or registry linkage (n = 769). A total of 657 had pSAH confirmed (20·1% sample, 0·34% admissions). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were as follows: i) model A: 98·3% (97·0-99·2), 53·5% (51·5-55·4), and 34·8% (32·6-37·0); ii) model B (score ≥6): 98·0% (96·6-98·9), 47·4% (45·5-49·4), and 32·0% (30·0-34·1); and iii) model C (score ≥2): 95·7% (93·9-97·2), 85·5% (84·0-86·8), and 62·3 (59·3-65·3), respectively. Model C scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 had probabilities of 0·5% (0·2-1·5), 1·5% (1·0-2·2), 24·8% (21·0-29·0), 90·0% (86·8-92·0), and 97·8% (88·7-99·6), without significant difference between centers (P = 0·86). The PPV of the International Classification of Diseases code (I60) was 63·0% (95% confidence interval: 60·0-66·0). CONCLUSIONS: All three models were highly sensitive for pSAH. Model C could be used to adjust for misclassification bias.