S S Fox1,2, A N Foster1, J A Ewing3, A M Hall1,2, M W Love1,4, A M Carbonell1,4, W S Cobb1,4, J A Warren5,6. 1. University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, SC, USA. 2. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville, Greenville, SC, USA. 3. Health Sciences Center, Prisma Health-Upstate, Greenville, SC, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Minimal Access and Bariatric Surgery, Prisma Health-Upstate, 701 Grove Rd. ST3, Greenville, SC, 29605, USA. 5. University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, SC, USA. Jeremy.Warren@prismahealth.org. 6. Department of Surgery, Division of Minimal Access and Bariatric Surgery, Prisma Health-Upstate, 701 Grove Rd. ST3, Greenville, SC, 29605, USA. Jeremy.Warren@prismahealth.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Parastomal hernias (PSH) are the most common complication of stoma creation and can cause significant morbidity. We present a consecutive series of patients receiving prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) for prevention of PSH. METHODS: This retrospective review evaluates the efficacy and outcomes of PMA for PSH prevention, and retrospectively compares traditional keyhole PMA (tPMA) (n = 28) with a prophylactic Stapled Ostomy Reinforcement with Retromuscular Mesh technique (pSTORRM) (n = 24). RESULTS: PMA was performed in 52 cases between January 2015 and July 2018. All cases used a large-pore, non-coated, mid-weight polypropylene mesh placed in the retrorectus space. With a median follow-up of 16 mos, parastomal hernia was confirmed in 11.5% (n = 6), 5 of whom were symptomatic. patient-reported outcomes (PRO) indicated 6 additional patients with symptoms associated with PSH without clinical or radiographic confirmation. Patients had similar comorbidities and operative characteristics between tPMA and pSTORRM techniques, and no difference in a median follow-up. pSTORRM patients had fewer surgical site infections (8.3 vs 32.1%; p = 0.046) and occurrences (12.5 vs 46.4%; p = 0.015), and lower rate of PSH, though not statistically significant (4.2 vs 17.9%; p = 0.195). CONCLUSION: Permanent synthetic mesh placed as a sublay in the retromuscular space is safe and appears to decrease the risk of PSH formation after the creation of permanent stomas. A stapled technique may provide advantages over a traditional keyhole technique.
INTRODUCTION:Parastomal hernias (PSH) are the most common complication of stoma creation and can cause significant morbidity. We present a consecutive series of patients receiving prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) for prevention of PSH. METHODS: This retrospective review evaluates the efficacy and outcomes of PMA for PSH prevention, and retrospectively compares traditional keyhole PMA (tPMA) (n = 28) with a prophylactic Stapled Ostomy Reinforcement with Retromuscular Mesh technique (pSTORRM) (n = 24). RESULTS: PMA was performed in 52 cases between January 2015 and July 2018. All cases used a large-pore, non-coated, mid-weight polypropylene mesh placed in the retrorectus space. With a median follow-up of 16 mos, parastomal hernia was confirmed in 11.5% (n = 6), 5 of whom were symptomatic. patient-reported outcomes (PRO) indicated 6 additional patients with symptoms associated with PSH without clinical or radiographic confirmation. Patients had similar comorbidities and operative characteristics between tPMA and pSTORRM techniques, and no difference in a median follow-up. pSTORRM patients had fewer surgical site infections (8.3 vs 32.1%; p = 0.046) and occurrences (12.5 vs 46.4%; p = 0.015), and lower rate of PSH, though not statistically significant (4.2 vs 17.9%; p = 0.195). CONCLUSION: Permanent synthetic mesh placed as a sublay in the retromuscular space is safe and appears to decrease the risk of PSH formation after the creation of permanent stomas. A stapled technique may provide advantages over a traditional keyhole technique.
Authors: Sarah S Fox; Robert Johnson; John P Fischer; Frederick Eckhauser; William W Hope Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Henk-Thijs Brandsma; Birgitta M E Hansson; Theo J Aufenacker; Dick van Geldere; Felix M V Lammeren; Chander Mahabier; Peter Makai; Pascal Steenvoorde; Tammo S de Vries Reilingh; Marinus J Wiezer; Johannes H W de Wilt; Robert P Bleichrodt; Camiel Rosman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Christopher T Aquina; James C Iannuzzi; Christian P Probst; Kristin N Kelly; Katia Noyes; Fergal J Fleming; John R T Monson Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: A Carrara; F L Nava; M Costa; L Fabris; M Zuolo; L Pellecchia; P Moscatelli; A Dorna; E Calabrese; M Ferrari; F Paganelli; M Recla; G Tirone Journal: Hernia Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 2.920