Literature DB >> 33877438

Prophylactic mesh placement at index permanent end colostomy creation to prevent parastomal hernia-an updated meta-analysis.

Shaheel M Sahebally1,2, Titus Z Lim3, Alisha A Azmir3, Cu Tai Lu3, Mark Doudle3, Arun Naik3, Gregory Nolan3, Michael Von Papen3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Debate persists regarding the efficacy of prophylactic mesh insertion (PMI) at index permanent stoma creation to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia (PSH). This meta-analysis aimed to appraise all the latest evidence from newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PMI for PSH prevention.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles from inception until November 2020. All RCTs that reported on PMI at end colostomy creation with ≥ 12 months follow-up were included. The primary objective was the rate of clinical and radiological PSH while secondary objectives included number of PSH requiring repair and stoma (or mesh)-related complications. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates. Sensitivity analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: Eleven RCTs were included capturing 1097 patients. The mean (SD) age was 67.9 (±9.4) years. On random effects analysis, prophylactic mesh appeared to reduce the rate of both clinical (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.61, p = 0.002) and radiological (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.65, p = 0.0002) PSH. However, there was no difference in number of PSH requiring repair or stoma-related complications. On sensitivity analysis, when focusing on low-risk of bias studies, the benefit of prophylactic mesh in the retrorectus space was lost for both clinical (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.51, p = 0.89) and radiological PSH (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.18, p = 0.20).
CONCLUSION: PMI may reduce the rate of subsequent PSH. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings and to establish the optimal mesh position and shape before definite recommendations can be made.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colostomy; Hernia; Mesh; Parastomal; Prevention; Prophylaxis

Year:  2021        PMID: 33877438     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03924-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  2 in total

1.  The continuing challenge of parastomal hernia: failure of a novel polypropylene mesh repair.

Authors:  G Morris-Stiff; L E Hughes
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Parastomal hernia repair: a single center experience.

Authors:  Danielle M Pastor; Eric M Pauli; Walter A Koltun; Randy S Haluck; Timothy R Shope; Lisa S Poritz
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2009 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

  2 in total
  1 in total

1.  Use of prophylactic stoma mesh is a risk factor for developing rectus abdominis muscle atrophy.

Authors:  S Täckström; A Chabok; K Smedh; M Nikberg
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 2.920

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.