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

Профилактическая установка сетчатого имплантата при формировании постоянной концевой колостомы для предотвращения парастомальной грыжи — обновлённый метаанализ
Shaheel Mohammad Sahebally, Titus Z Lim, Alisha Azmir, Cu‐Tai Lu, Mark Doudle, Arun Naik, Gregory Nolan, Michael von Papen
2021-04-20

meta-analysisparastomal hernia preventionpermanent end colostomyprophylactic mesh insertionrandomized controlled trials
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.
1
Among low-risk-of-bias studies, the apparent benefit of retrorectus mesh was no longer evident for clinical or radiological hernias, leaving optimal mesh position and shape uncertain.
2
An updated meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials including 1,097 patients evaluated prophylactic mesh during permanent end-colostomy creation.
3
Mesh placement did not reduce parastomal hernias requiring repair or stoma-related complications.
4
Prophylactic mesh was associated with lower clinical parastomal hernia rates (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12–0.61; p = 0.002).
5
Prophylactic mesh was associated with lower radiological parastomal hernia rates (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24–0.65; p = 0.0002).

prophylactic mesh placement during creation of a permanent end colostomy

the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh for preventing clinical and radiological parastomal hernia, including hernias requiring repair and stoma-related complications

Publication Details
Publication Date
2021-04-20
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
21
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Shaheel Mohammad Sahebally
Titus Z Lim
Alisha Azmir
Cu‐Tai Lu
Mark Doudle
Arun Naik
Gregory Nolan
Michael von Papen
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%