Parastomal Hernia Repair; Seldom Performed and Seldom Reported: Results From a Nationwide Survey

Background: Parastomal hernia is common, but there are few population-based studies showing the frequency and outcome of parastomal hernia repair in routine surgical practice. The aim of this study was to identify patients undergoing surgery for parastomal hernia in Sweden and to define risk factors for complication and recurrence. Methods: A broad search of the Swedish National Patient Register 1998–2007 for all possible parastomal hernia repairs using surgical procedure codes. Records of all patients identified were reviewed and those with a definite parastomal hernia procedure were included and analyzed. Results: A total of 71 patients were identified after review of the records. The most common reason for surgery was cosmetic and the most frequent method was relocation of the stoma. Parastomal hernia recurrence rate was 18% during follow-up of a minimum 2 years. Overall, a surgical complication occurred in 32%. Possible risk factors were analyzed including emergency surgery versus planned, gender, age, indication for surgery, and method of surgery; none of which was significant. Conclusion: The frequency of parastomal hernia procedures was much lower than suggested by previous studies. The number of procedures per surgeon was even lower than expected. No specific risk factor could be identified. Parastomal hernia auditing in the form of a nationwide quality register should be mandatory. Centralization should be considered.

[1]  S. Marecik,et al.  Local parastomal hernia repair with biological mesh is safe and effective. , 2018, American journal of surgery.

[2]  L. Kroese,et al.  European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias , 2018, Hernia.

[3]  I. Gögenur,et al.  Living with a parastomal bulge ‐ patients’ experiences of symptoms , 2017, Journal of clinical nursing.

[4]  U. Gunnarsson,et al.  Parastomal Hernia Repair with Intraperitoneal Mesh , 2017, Surgery research and practice.

[5]  B. Matthews,et al.  Trends in parastomal hernia repair in the United States: a 14-y review. , 2017, The Journal of surgical research.

[6]  S. Rosenblatt,et al.  Single center experience with the modified retromuscular Sugarbaker technique for parastomal hernia repair , 2017, Hernia.

[7]  Q. Nunes,et al.  Parietex™ Composite mesh versus DynaMesh®-IPOM for laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study. , 2016, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[8]  J. Monson,et al.  Parastomal Hernia: A Growing Problem with New Solutions , 2014, Digestive Surgery.

[9]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Risk of Morbidity, Mortality, and Recurrence After Parastomal Hernia Repair: A Nationwide Study , 2013, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[10]  P. Wara,et al.  Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernia using a bilayer mesh with a slit , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

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

[12]  A. Hasted,et al.  Results of a nationwide prospective audit of stoma complications within 3 weeks of surgery , 2007, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[13]  F. Frizelle,et al.  Parastomal hernia , 2003, The British journal of surgery.

[14]  S. Haapaniemi,et al.  Hernia registers and specialization. , 1998, The Surgical clinics of North America.