J Shabbir1, B N Chaudhary, R Dawson. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Arrowe Park University Teaching Hospital, Wirral, UK. jshabbir@nhs.net
Abstract
AIM: Despite advances in surgical technique, parastomal herniation is common. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of prophylactic mesh at primary operation in reducing the incidence of parastomal hernia. METHOD: Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched for relevant publications between January 1980 and January 2010. The search strategy included text terms and MESH headings for parastomal hernia, mesh and prevention and/or prophylaxis of hernia. No language restrictions were applied. Bibliographies from the papers requested in full were manually checked. All randomized controlled trials were included regardless of the language of publication. Results were extracted from the papers by two observers independently on a predefined data sheet. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. REVMAN 5 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 27 possible studies three randomized controlled trials fulfilled the criteria for systematic review, with a total of 128 patients (mesh 64, no mesh 64). The two study groups were well matched demographically. The incidence of parastomal hernia in the mesh group was 12.5% (8/64) compared with 53% (34/64) in the control group (P < 0.0001). There was no difference in mesh related morbidity in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Although only three trials with 128 patients fulfilled the criteria for this systematic review, the data suggest that the use of prophylactic prosthetic mesh at the time of primary stoma formation reduces the incidence of parastomal hernia.
AIM: Despite advances in surgical technique, parastomal herniation is common. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of prophylactic mesh at primary operation in reducing the incidence of parastomal hernia. METHOD: Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched for relevant publications between January 1980 and January 2010. The search strategy included text terms and MESH headings for parastomal hernia, mesh and prevention and/or prophylaxis of hernia. No language restrictions were applied. Bibliographies from the papers requested in full were manually checked. All randomized controlled trials were included regardless of the language of publication. Results were extracted from the papers by two observers independently on a predefined data sheet. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. REVMAN 5 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 27 possible studies three randomized controlled trials fulfilled the criteria for systematic review, with a total of 128 patients (mesh 64, no mesh 64). The two study groups were well matched demographically. The incidence of parastomal hernia in the mesh group was 12.5% (8/64) compared with 53% (34/64) in the control group (P < 0.0001). There was no difference in mesh related morbidity in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Although only three trials with 128 patients fulfilled the criteria for this systematic review, the data suggest that the use of prophylactic prosthetic mesh at the time of primary stoma formation reduces the incidence of parastomal hernia.
Authors: S A Antoniou; F Agresta; J M Garcia Alamino; D Berger; F Berrevoet; H-T Brandsma; K Bury; J Conze; D Cuccurullo; U A Dietz; R H Fortelny; C Frei-Lanter; B Hansson; F Helgstrand; A Hotouras; A Jänes; L F Kroese; J R Lambrecht; I Kyle-Leinhase; M López-Cano; L Maggiori; V Mandalà; M Miserez; A Montgomery; S Morales-Conde; M Prudhomme; T Rautio; N Smart; M Śmietański; M Szczepkowski; C Stabilini; F E Muysoms Journal: Hernia Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Josep M García-Alamino; Manuel López-Cano; Leonard Kroese; Frederik Helgstrand; Filip Muysoms Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.352