Preventing Parastomal Hernia Using a Modified Sugarbaker Technique With Composite Mesh During Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia (PH) after placement of prophylactic synthetic mesh using a modified Sugarbaker technique when a permanent end-colostomy is needed. Summary of Background Data: Prevention of PH formation is crucial given the high prevalence of PH and difficulties in the surgical repair of PH. Methods: A randomized, prospective, double-blind, and controlled trial. Rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy were randomized (1 : 1) to the mesh and nonmesh arms. In the mesh group, a large-pore lightweight composite mesh was placed in the intraperitoneal/onlay fashion using a modified Sugarbaker technique. PH was detected by computed tomography (CT) after a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Analysis was per-protocol. Results: The mesh group included 24 patients and the control group 28. Preoperative data, surgical time, and postoperative morbidity were similar. The median follow-up was 26 months. After CT examination, 6 of 24 PHs (25%) were observed in the mesh group compared with 18 of 28 (64.3%) in the nonmesh group (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18–0.82; P = 0.005). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences in favor of the mesh group (long-rank = 4.21, P = 0.04). The number needed to treat was 2.5, which confirmed the effectiveness of the intervention. Conclusions: Placement of a prosthetic mesh by the laparoscopic approach following the modified Sugarbaker technique is safe and effective in the prevention of PH, reducing significantly the incidence of PH.

[1]  P. Ohtonen,et al.  Prospective, Randomized Study on the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia of Permanent Colostomy , 2015, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[2]  K. Flatmark,et al.  Prophylactic mesh at end‐colostomy construction reduces parastomal hernia rate: a randomized trial , 2015, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[3]  B. Lapin,et al.  Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: A meta-analysis. , 2015, World journal of gastroenterology.

[4]  K. Smedh,et al.  Prophylactic stoma mesh did not prevent parastomal hernias , 2015, International Journal of Colorectal Disease.

[5]  N. Williams,et al.  Parastomal hernia prevention: is it all about mesh reinforcement? , 2014, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[6]  J. Fleshman,et al.  A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study of Non-cross-linked Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix Fascial Sublay for Parastomal Reinforcement in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Permanent Abdominal Wall Ostomies , 2014, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[7]  X. Serra-Aracil,et al.  Prevención laparoscópica de la hernia paraestomal mediante técnica de Sugarbaker modificada con malla compuesta (Physiomesh , 2013 .

[8]  H. Harris,et al.  A critical review of biologic mesh use in ventral hernia repairs under contaminated conditions , 2013, Hernia.

[9]  R. Bleichrodt,et al.  The laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker technique is safe and has a low recurrence rate: a multicenter cohort study , 2012, Surgical Endoscopy.

[10]  M. López-Cano,et al.  Use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a randomized controlled trial , 2012, Hernia.

[11]  R. Bleichrodt,et al.  Surgical Techniques for Parastomal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2012, Annals of surgery.

[12]  L. Israelsson,et al.  Parastomal hernia: clinical and radiological definitions , 2011, Hernia.

[13]  S. Navarro-Soto,et al.  Prevention of Parastomal Hernia. Is it Possible , 2010 .

[14]  M. Bailey,et al.  Prospective Audit of Parastomal Hernia: Prevalence and Associated Comorbidities , 2010, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[15]  S. Navarro-Soto,et al.  Randomized, Controlled, Prospective Trial of the Use of a Mesh to Prevent Parastomal Hernia , 2009, Annals of surgery.

[16]  P. Rebasa,et al.  The prevalence of parastomal hernia after formation of an end colostomy. A new clinico‐radiological classification , 2009, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[17]  N. Williams,et al.  Parastomal hernia prevention using a novel collagen implant: a randomised controlled phase 1 study , 2008, Hernia.

[18]  R. Bleichrodt,et al.  Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a keyhole technique results in a high recurrence rate , 2008, Surgical Endoscopy.

[19]  D. Berger,et al.  Prevention of parastomal hernias by prophylactic use of a specially designed intraperitoneal onlay mesh (Dynamesh IPST®) , 2008, Hernia.

[20]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  S. Stelzner,et al.  Repair of Paracolostomy Hernias With a Prosthetic Mesh in the Intraperitoneal Onlay Position: Modified Sugarbaker Technique , 2004, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[22]  B. Langenhorst,et al.  Repair of large midline incisional hernias with polypropylene mesh: Comparison of three operative techniques , 2004, Hernia.

[23]  D. Sackett,et al.  The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect , 1995, BMJ.

[24]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.