Search

Purpose: The TransREctus sheath PrePeritoneal procedure (TREPP) was introduced as an alternative open and preperitoneal technique for inguinal hernia mesh repair, demonstrating safety and efficacy in retro- and prospective studies. However, little is known about the technique's inherent learning curve. In this study, we aimed to determine TREPP learning curve effects after its implementation in high-volume surgical practice., Methods: All primary, unilateral TREPP procedures performed in the first three years after implementation (between January 2016 and December 2018) were included out of a large preconstructed regional inguinal hernia database. Data were analyzed on outcome (i.e., surgical complications, hernia recurrences, postoperative pain). Learning curve effects were analyzed by assessing outcome in relation to surgeon experience., Results: In total, 422 primary, unilateral TREPP procedures were performed in 419 patients. In three patients a unilateral TREPP procedure was performed on both sides separated in time. A total of 99 surgical complications were registered in 83 procedures (19.6% of all procedures), most commonly inguinal postoperative pain (8%) and bleeding complications (7%). Hernia recurrences were observed in 17 patients (4%). No statistically significant differences on outcome were found between different surgeon experience (< 40 procedures, 40-80 procedures, > 80 procedures)., Conclusion: Implementation of TREPP seems not to be associated with a notable increase of adverse events. We were not able to detect a clear learning curve limit, potentially suggesting a relatively short learning curve among already experienced hernia surgeons compared to other guideline techniques., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity., Competing Interests: FM declared consultancy fees from Medtronic, Dynamesh, BD, and Gore. NS declared speakers fees on parastomal hernia prevention with mesh prophylaxis from Medtronic, WL Gore. All other panel members declared no financial conflict of interest. SA and FM were part of the guideline development group of the EHS Guidelines on Parastomal Hernias. ML, H-TB, and CO are authors of randomized trials and meta-analyses related to the content of this topic. Conflicts of interest were documented and managed as per Guidelines International Network Standards. Detailed conflict of interest statements of all contributors can be found in https://osf.io/k4sh8/. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Stabilini, Muysoms, Tzanis, Rossi, Koutsiouroumpa, Mavridis, Adamina, Bracale, Brandsma, Breukink, López Cano, Cole, Doré, Jensen, Krogsgaard, Smart, Odensten, Tielemans and Antoniou.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine if prophylactic mesh placement is an effective, safe, and cost-effective procedure to prevent parastomal hernia (PSH) formation in the long term., Background: A PSH is the most frequent complication after stoma formation. Prophylactic placement of a mesh has been suggested to prevent PSH, but long-term evidence to support this approach is scarce., Methods: In this multicentre superiority trial patients undergoing the formation of a permanent colostomy were randomly assigned to either retromuscular polypropylene mesh reinforcement or conventional colostomy formation. Primary endpoint was the incidence of a PSH after 5 years. Secondary endpoints were morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness., Results: A total of 150 patients were randomly assigned to the mesh group (n = 72) or nonmesh group (n = 78). For the long-term follow-up, 113 patients were analyzed, and 37 patients were lost to follow-up. After a median follow-up of 60 months (interquartile range: 48.6-64.4), 49 patients developed a PSH, 20 (27.8%) in the mesh group and 29 (37.2%) in the nonmesh group ( P = 0.22; RD: -9.4%; 95% CI: -24, 5.5). The cost related to the meshing strategy was € 2.239 lower than the nonmesh strategy (95% CI: 491.18, 3985.49), and quality-adjusted life years did not differ significantly between groups ( P = 0.959; 95% CI: -0.066, 0.070)., Conclusions: Prophylactic mesh placement during the formation of an end-colostomy is a safe procedure but does not reduce the incidence of PSH after 5 years of follow-up. It does, however, delay the onset of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, and seems to be cost-effective., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I 2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I 2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I 2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I 2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach., Competing Interests: FM declared consultancy fees from Medtronic, Dynamesh, BD, and Gore. NS declared speakers fees on parastomal hernia prevention with mesh prophylaxis from Medtronic, WL Gore. All other panel members declared no financial conflict of interest. SA and FM were part of the guideline development group of the EHS Guidelines on Parastomal Hernias. ML, H-TB, and CO are authors of randomized trials and meta-analyses related to the content of this topic. Conflicts of interest were documented and managed as per Guidelines International Network Standards. Detailed conflict of interest statements of all contributors can be found in https://osf.io/k4sh8/. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Tzanis, Stabilini, Muysoms, Rossi, Koutsiouroumpa, Mavridis, Adamina, Bracale, Brandsma, Breukink, López Cano, Cole, Doré, Jensen, Krogsgaard, Smart, Odensten, Tielemans and Antoniou.)

Objectives: To describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation., Design: (1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a 'long list' of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study., Setting: Two secondary care surgical centres in England., Participants: Patients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses., Outcome Measures: Successful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study., Results: 59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma., Conclusions: This study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN17573805., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Results of the most commonly used inguinal hernia repair techniques often originate from expert centers or from randomized controlled studies. In this study, we portray daily-practice results of a high-volume, regional surgical group in the Netherlands, comparing TREPP (open (posterior) transrectus sheath pre-peritoneal) with Lichtenstein (open anterior) and TEP (endoscopic (posterior) totally extraperitoneal). We hypothesize that the TREPP shows more favorable outcome compared to the current gold standard procedures: TEP and Lichtenstein., Methods: Between January 2016 and December 2018, 3285 consecutive patients underwent surgical treatment and were included for analysis. The outcome measures were postoperative pain, recurrence rate and other surgical complications. Propensity-score matching was used to address potential selection bias., Results: After propensity-score matching, there was no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain in the TREPP group compared to the Lichtenstein group (TREPP 7.3% versus Lichtenstein 6.3%; p = 0.67) nor in TREPP compared to TEP (TREPP 7.4% versus TEP 4.1%; p = 0.064). There was no statistically significant difference in recurrences in the TREPP group compared to Lichtenstein (3.8% vs 2.5%; p = 0.42), nor in the TREPP versus TEP comparison (3.9% vs 2.8%; p = 0.55) CONCLUSION: This study compares TREPP with Lichtenstein and TEP in the presence of postoperative pain, recurrences and other adverse outcomes. After propensity-score matching, no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain or recurrences remained between either TREPP compared to Lichtenstein, or TREPP compared to TEP. Based on these results, TREPP, Lichtenstein and TEP showed comparable results in postoperative pain, recurrences and other surgical site complications., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

Background: Colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) are often diagnosed in an advanced disease stage. Cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improve survival of patients with colorectal PM, although most benefit is seen in patients with limited peritoneal disease. Advanced imaging techniques might improve the detection of PM, potentially leading to earlier diagnosis and improved cytoreduction. This prospective clinical trial compared three advanced techniques with conventional white-light imaging for the detection of colorectal PM: narrow-band imaging (NBI), near-infrared indocyanine green fluorescent imaging (NIR-ICG), and spray-dye chromoendoscopy (SDCE)., Methods: Patients with colorectal PM were prospectively included. Prior to cytoreduction and HIPEC, all abdominal regions were inspected with white-light imaging, NBI, NIR-ICG, and SDCE during exploratory laparoscopy. Primary endpoints were sensitivity and specificity for the detection of PM, using pathological examination of biopsied lesions as the reference standard. The safety of all techniques was assessed., Results: Between May 2016 and March 2018, four different techniques were analyzed in 28 patients, resulting in 169 biopsies. Sensitivity for the detection of PM significantly increased from 80.0% with white light to 96.0% with NBI (p = 0.008), without loss of specificity (74.8% vs. 73.1%, respectively, p = 0.804). The use of NIR-ICG and SDCE was discontinued after 10 patients had undergone treatment because the lesions were not fluorescent using NIR-ICG, and because SDCE did not visualize the whole peritoneum. No adverse events relating to the imaging techniques occurred., Conclusion: NBI substantially increased the detection of PM. This method is safe and could improve the detection of metastatic lesions and help optimize cytoreduction in patients with colorectal PM.

Background: International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project., Methods: The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants., Results: End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed., Conclusion: An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of parastomal hernias (PSHs) after end-colostomy formation using a polypropylene mesh in a randomized controlled trial versus conventional colostomy formation., Background: A PSH is the most frequent complication after stoma formation. Symptoms may range from mild abdominal pain to life-threatening obstruction and strangulation. The treatment of a PSH is notoriously difficult and recurrences up to 20% have been reported despite the use of mesh. This has moved surgical focus toward prevention., Methods: Augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retro-muscular lightweight polypropylene mesh was compared with the traditional formation of a colostomy. In total, 150 patients (1:1 ratio) were included. The incidence of a PSH, morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness was measured after 1 year of follow-up., Results: There was no difference between groups regarding demographics and predisposing factors for PSH. Three out of 67 patients (4.5%) in the mesh group and 16 out of 66 patients (24.2%) in the nonmesh group developed a PSH (P = 0.0011). No statistically significant difference was found in infections, concomitant hernias, SF-36 questionnaire, Von Korff pain score, and cost-effectiveness between both study groups., Conclusion: Prophylactic augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular lightweight polypropylene mesh at the ostomy site significantly reduces the incidence of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

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: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication after colostomy formation. Recent studies indicate that mesh implantation during formation of a colostomy might prevent a PSH. To determine if placement of a retromuscular mesh at the colostomy site is a feasible, safe and effective procedure in preventing a parastomal hernia, we performed a multicentre randomized controlled trial in 11 large teaching hospitals and three university centres in The Netherlands., Methods: Augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular light-weight polypropylene mesh (Parietene Light™, Covidien) around the trephine was compared with traditional colostomy formation. Patients undergoing elective open formation of a permanent end-colostomy were eligible. 150 patients were randomized between 2010 and 2012. Primary endpoint of the PREVENT trial is the incidence of parastomal hernia. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, pain, quality of life, mortality and cost-effectiveness. This article focussed on the early results of the PREVENT trial and, therefore, operation time, postoperative morbidity, pain, and quality of life were measured., Results: Outcomes represent results after 3 months of follow-up. A total of 150 patients were randomized. Mean operation time of the mesh group (N = 72) was significantly longer than in the control group (N = 78) (182.6 vs. 156.8 min; P = 0.018). Four (2.7 %) peristomal infections occurred of which one (1.4 %) in the mesh group. No infection of the mesh occurred. Most of the other infections were infections of the perineal wound, equally distributed over both groups. No statistical differences were discovered in stoma or mesh-related complications, fistula or stricture formation, pain, or quality of life., Conclusions: During open and elective formation of an end-colostomy, primary placement of a retromuscular light-weight polypropylene mesh for prevention of a parastomal hernia is a safe and feasible procedure. The PREVENT trial is registered at: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2018 .

Background: Parastomal hernia is a common complication of a colostomy. Ultimately, one-third of patients with a parastomal hernia will need surgical correction due to frequent leakage or life-threatening bowel obstruction or strangulation. However, treatment remains a challenge resulting in high recurrence rates. Two single center trials demonstrated that the frequency of parastomal hernias decreases by prophylactic placement of a mesh around the stoma at the time of formation. Unfortunately, both studies were small-sized, single-center studies and with these small numbers less common complications could be missed which were the reasons to initiate a prospective randomized multicenter trial to determine if a retromuscular, preperitoneal mesh at the stoma site prevents parastomal hernia and does not cause unacceptable complications., Methods: One hundred and fifty patients undergoing open procedure, elective formation of a permanent end-colostomy will be randomized into two groups. In the intervention group an end-colostomy is created with placement of a preperitioneal, retromuscular lightweight monofilament polypropylene mesh, and compared to a group with a traditional stoma without mesh. Patients will be recruited from 14 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands during a 2-year period. Primary endpoint is the incidence of parastomal hernia. Secondary endpoints are stoma complications, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life. Follow-up will be performed at 3 weeks, 3 months and at 1, 2, and 5 years. To find a difference of 20% with a power of 90%, a total number of 134 patients must be included. All results will be reported according to the CONSORT 2010 statement., Discussion: The PREVENT-trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial powered to determine whether prophylactic placement of a polypropylene mesh decreases the incidence of a parastomal hernia versus the traditional stoma formation without a mesh., Trial Registration: The PREVENT-trial is registered at: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2018.