Prospective, Randomized Study on the Use of Prosthetic Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia in a Permanent Colostomy: Results of a Long-term Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Parastomal hernias are common with permanent colostomies and prone to complications. The short-term results of trials of parastomal hernia prevention are widely published, but long-term results are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to detect the long-term effects and safety of preventive intra-abdominal parastomal mesh. DESIGN: This is a long-term follow-up of a previous prospective randomized, controlled multicenter trial. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 2 university hospitals and 3 central hospitals in Finland. PATIENTS: Patients who had a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer between 2010 and 2013 were included in the study and invited for a follow-up visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were clinical and radiological parastomal hernias. RESULTS: Twenty subjects in the mesh group and 15 in the control group attended the follow-up visit with a median follow-up period of 65 (25th-75th percentiles, 49-91) months. A clinically detectable parastomal hernia was present in 4 of 20 (20.0%) and 5 of 15 (33.3%) subjects in the mesh and control groups (p = 0.45). A radiological parastomal hernia was present in 9 of 19 (45.0%) subjects in the mesh group and 7 of 12 (58.3%) subjects in the control group (p = 0.72). However, when all subjects (n = 70, 1:1) who attended the 12-month follow-up were screened for long-term results according to register data, 9 of 35 (25.9%) subjects in the mesh group and 16 of 35 (45.6%) subjects in control group were diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the follow-up period (p = 0.10). In addition, only 1 of 35 (2.7%) subjects in the mesh group but 6 of 35 (17.1%) subjects in the control group underwent a parastomal hernia operation during the long-term follow-up (p = 0.030). LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by the small number of patients. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic intra-abdominal keyhole mesh did not decrease the rate of clinically detectable hernias but reduced the need for the surgical repair of parastomal hernias. Further trials are needed to identify a more efficient method to prevent parastomal hernias. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B171. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02368873. ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO ALEATORIZADO SOBRE EL USO DE MALLA PROTÉSICA PARA PREVENIR UNA HERNIA PARAESTOMAL EN UNA COLOSTOMÍA PERMANENTE: RESULTADOS DE UN SEGUIMIENTO A LARGO PLAZO: PREVENCIÓN DE HERNIA PARAESTOMAL, NEOPLASIA COLORRECTAL/ANAL: Las hernias paraestomales son comunes con colostomías permanentes y son propensas a complicaciones. Los resultados a corto plazo de los ensayos sobre la prevención de la hernia parastomal se publican ampliamente, pero los resultados a largo plazo son escasos.El objetivo del estudio es detectar los efectos a largo plazo y la seguridad de la malla parastomal intraabdominal preventiva.Este es un seguimiento a largo plazo de un estudio aleatorizado prospectivo, controlado y multicentrico previo.Este estudio se realizó en dos hospitales universitarios y tres hospitales centrales en Finlandia.Los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica por cáncer de recto 2010-2013 fueron incluidos en el estudio e invitados a una visita de seguimiento.Hernias parastomales clínicas y radiológicas.Veinte sujetos en el grupo de malla y 15 en el grupo control asistieron a la visita de seguimiento con una mediana de seguimiento de 65 meses (25-75 ° percentil 49-91). Una hernia paraestomal clínicamente detectable estuvo presente en 4/20 (20.0%) y 5/15 (33.3%) en los grupos de malla y control, respectivamente (p = 0.45). Una hernia parastomal radiológica estuvo presente en 9/19 (45.0%) en el grupo de malla y 7/12 (58.3%) en el grupo de control (p = 0.72). Sin embargo, cuando todos los sujetos (n = 70, 1: 1) que asistieron a los 12 meses de seguimiento fueron evaluados para obtener resultados a largo plazo de acuerdo con los datos del registro, 9/35 (25.9%) sujetos en el grupo de malla y 16/35 (45,6%) sujetos en el grupo control fueron diagnosticados con una hernia paraestomal durante el período de seguimiento (p = 0,10). Además, solo 1/35 (2.7%) en el grupo de malla pero 6/35 (17.1%) en el grupo control se sometieron a una operación de hernia paraestomal durante el seguimiento a largo plazo (p = 0.030).El estudio está limitado por un pequeño número de pacientes.La malla intra-abdominal profiláctica en ojo de cerradura no disminuyó la tasa de hernias clínicamente detectables, pero redujo la necesidad de la reparación quirúrgica de las hernias paraestomales. Se necesitan ensayos adicionales para identificar un método más eficiente para prevenir las hernias parastomales. Vea el resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B171. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).NCT02368873.

Prospective, Randomized Study on the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia of Permanent Colostomy.

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.