Long-term assessment of parastomal hernia prevention by intra-peritoneal mesh reinforcement according to the modified Sugarbaker technique.

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.

Comparison between single-incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective trial of the Club Coelio.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). METHOD: Patients' inclusion criteria were uncomplicated gallstones, BMI ≤30, ASA score ≤2, and no past surgery in the upper abdomen. Five surgeons performed only SILC and seven only CLC. Data analyzed included operative time, morbidity, quality of life (QOL), cosmetic result, and global patient satisfaction. The last three parameters were evaluated 3 months after surgery. QOL was assessed with the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) questionnaire. Cosmetic result and patient satisfaction were rated using a 5-grade Likert scale. RESULTS: This study included 104 patients operated on between April and June 2010. A SILC was performed in 35 patients and a CLC in 69. The preoperative characteristics of the two groups were similar. Median operative time for SILC was higher than that for CLC: 55 versus 40 min (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications (0 vs. 2) and postoperative GIQLI scores (123 ± 13 vs. 121 ± 18) were not significantly different between groups. Cosmetic result and patient satisfaction were better for SILC than for CLC. The percentages of results rated as excellent were 68 versus 37 % (p < 0.006) and 80 versus 57 % (p < 0.039), respectively. For the whole group, multivariate statistical analysis revealed that postoperative GIQLI score and cosmetic result were independent predictive factors of patient satisfaction. The percentages of satisfaction rated as excellent were greater in patients who had a postoperative GIQLI score ≥130 (92 vs. 49 %, odds ratio [OR] = 4, p < 0.001) and in patients who had an excellent cosmetic result (82 vs. 47 %, OR = 7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CLC, SILC is associated with a longer operative time, an equivalent morbidity and QOL, and a better cosmetic result. The improved aesthetic result also leads to a better global patient satisfaction.