Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prophylactic mesh reinforcement of stomas: a cost-effectiveness meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Findlay, J M; Wood, C P J; Cunningham, C.
  • Findlay JM; Oxford Colorectal Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. john.findlay@oncology.ox.ac.uk.
  • Wood CPJ; Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK. john.findlay@oncology.ox.ac.uk.
  • Cunningham C; Oxford Colorectal Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Tech Coloproctol ; 22(4): 265-270, 2018 04.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29732505
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Previous meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested a reduction in parastomal hernias (PSH) with prophylactic mesh. However, concerns persist regarding variably supportive evidence and cost. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform a novel cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS:

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched (February 2018). We included RCTs assessing mesh reinforcement during stoma formation. We assessed PSH rates, subsequent repair, complications and operative time. Odds ratios (OR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were generated on intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) bases. These then informed cost analysis using 2017 UK/USA reimbursement rates and stoma care costs.

RESULTS:

Eleven RCTs were included. Four hundred fifty-three patients were randomised to mesh (PP 412), with 454 controls (PP 413). Six studies used synthetic meshes, three composite and two biological (91.7% colostomies; 3.64% ileostomies, 4.63% not specified). Reductions were seen in the number of hernias detected clinically and on computed tomography scan. For the former, ITT OR was 0.23 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.51; p = 0.0003; n = 11); NNT 4.17 (2.56-10.0), with fewer subsequent repairs OR 0.29 (0.13-0.64; p = 0.002; n = 7; NNT16.7 (10.0-33.3). Reductions persisted for synthetic and composite meshes. Operative time was similar, with zero incidence of mesh infection/fistulation, and fewer peristomal complications. Synthetic mesh demonstrated a favourable cost profile, with composite approximately cost neutral, and biological incurring net costs.

CONCLUSIONS:

Reinforcing elective stomas with mesh (primarily synthetic) reduces subsequent PSH rates, complications, repairs and saves money. We recommend that future RCTs compare mesh subtypes, techniques, and applicability to emergency stomas.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Mallas Quirúrgicas / Colostomía / Ileostomía / Hernia Abdominal Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Mallas Quirúrgicas / Colostomía / Ileostomía / Hernia Abdominal Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article