M López-Cano1, H-T Brandsma2, K Bury3, B Hansson2, I Kyle-Leinhase4, J G Alamino5, F Muysoms4. 1. Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. mlpezcano@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdańsk, Poland. 4. Department of Surgery, Maria Middelares Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 5. Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prevention of parastomal hernia (PSH) formation is crucial, given the high prevalence and difficulties in the surgical repair of PSH. To investigate the effect of a preventive mesh in PSH formation after an end colostomy, we aimed to meta-analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched five databases. For each trial, we extracted risk ratios (RRs) of the effects of mesh or no mesh. The primary outcome was incidence of PSH with a minimum follow-up of 12 months with a clinical and/or computed tomography diagnosis. RRs were combined using the random-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel). To control the risk of type I error, we performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA). RESULTS: Seven RCTs with low risk of bias (451 patients) were included. Meta-analysis for primary outcome showed a significant reduction of the incidence of PSH using a mesh (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0009). Regarding TSA calculation for the primary outcome, the accrued information size (451) was 187.1% of the estimated required information size (RIS) (241). Wound infection showed no statistical differences between groups (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39-1.54; P = 0.46). PSH repair rate showed a significant reduction in the mesh group (RR 0.28 (95% CI 0.10-0.78; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PSH prevention with mesh when creating an end colostomy reduces the incidence of PSH, the risk for subsequent PSH repair and does not increase wound infections. TSA shows that the RIS is reached for the primary outcome. Additional RCTs in the previous context are not needed.
PURPOSE: Prevention of parastomal hernia (PSH) formation is crucial, given the high prevalence and difficulties in the surgical repair of PSH. To investigate the effect of a preventive mesh in PSH formation after an end colostomy, we aimed to meta-analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched five databases. For each trial, we extracted risk ratios (RRs) of the effects of mesh or no mesh. The primary outcome was incidence of PSH with a minimum follow-up of 12 months with a clinical and/or computed tomography diagnosis. RRs were combined using the random-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel). To control the risk of type I error, we performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA). RESULTS: Seven RCTs with low risk of bias (451 patients) were included. Meta-analysis for primary outcome showed a significant reduction of the incidence of PSH using a mesh (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0009). Regarding TSA calculation for the primary outcome, the accrued information size (451) was 187.1% of the estimated required information size (RIS) (241). Wound infection showed no statistical differences between groups (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39-1.54; P = 0.46). PSH repair rate showed a significant reduction in the mesh group (RR 0.28 (95% CI 0.10-0.78; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PSH prevention with mesh when creating an end colostomy reduces the incidence of PSH, the risk for subsequent PSH repair and does not increase wound infections. TSA shows that the RIS is reached for the primary outcome. Additional RCTs in the previous context are not needed.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: M López-Cano; R Lozoya-Trujillo; S Quiroga; J L Sánchez; F Vallribera; M Martí; L M Jiménez; M Armengol-Carrasco; E Espín Journal: Hernia Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Frederik Helgstrand; Jacob Rosenberg; Henrik Kehlet; Lars N Jorgensen; Pål Wara; Thue Bisgaard Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: J Moreno-Matias; X Serra-Aracil; A Darnell-Martin; J Bombardo-Junca; L Mora-Lopez; M Alcantara-Moral; P Rebasa; I Ayguavives-Garnica; S Navarro-Soto Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2008-05-03 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Kristian Thorlund; Georgina Imberger; Michael Walsh; Rong Chu; Christian Gluud; Jørn Wetterslev; Gordon Guyatt; Philip J Devereaux; Lehana Thabane Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: F Ferrara; D Parini; A Bondurri; M Veltri; M Barbierato; F Pata; F Cattaneo; A Tafuri; C Forni; G Roveron; G Rizzo Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Jonathan Frigault; Simon Lemieux; Dominic Breton; Philippe Bouchard; Alexandre Bouchard; Roger C Grégoire; François Letarte; Gilles Bouchard; Vincent Boun; Katia Massé; Sébastien Drolet Journal: Hernia Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.739