[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.158.167.137. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure.
Checklist for randomized controlled trials.

Checklist for randomized controlled trials.

Table 1. 
Patient and Operative Characteristics Related to Enterostoma With or Without a Prosthetic Mesh
Patient and Operative Characteristics Related to Enterostoma With or Without a Prosthetic Mesh
Table 2. 
Parastomal Hernia at 12-Month Follow-up
Parastomal Hernia at 12-Month Follow-up
1.
Pearl  RK Parastomal hernias. World J Surg 1989;13569- 572
PubMedArticle
2.
Birnbaum  WFerrier  P Complications of abdominal colostomy. Am J Surg 1952;8364- 67
PubMedArticle
3.
Burns  FJ Complications of colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1970;13448- 450
PubMedArticle
4.
Abrams  BLAlsikafi  FHWaterman  NG Colostomy: a new look at morbidity and mortality. Am Surg 1979;45462- 464
PubMed
5.
Burgess  PMatthew  VVDevlin  HB A review of terminal colostomy complications following abdominoperineal resection for carcinoma. Br J Surg 1984;711004
6.
Cevese  PGD’Amico  DFBiasiato  R  et al.  Peristomal hernia following end-colostomy: a conservative approach. Ital J Surg Sci 1984;14207- 209
PubMed
7.
Cheung  MT Complications of an abdominal stoma: an analysis of 322 stomas. Aust N Z J Surg 1995;65808- 811
PubMedArticle
8.
Londono-Schimmer  EELeong  APPhillips  RK Life table analysis of stomal complications following colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37916- 920
PubMedArticle
9.
Ortiz  HSara  MJArmendariz  Pde Miguel  MMarti  JChocarro  C Does the frequency of paracolostomy hernias depend on the position of the colostomy in the abdominal wall? Int J Colorectal Dis 1994;965- 67
PubMedArticle
10.
Pearl  RKPrasad  MLOrsay  CPAbcarian  HTan  ABMelzl  MT Early local complications from intestinal stomas. Arch Surg 1985;1201145- 1147
PubMedArticle
11.
Sjodahl  RAnderberg  BBolin  T Parastomal hernia in relation to site of the abdominal stoma. Br J Surg 1988;75339- 341
PubMedArticle
12.
Balslev  A Kolostomitilvaerelse. Ugeskr Laeger 1973;1352799- 2804
PubMed
13.
Stelzner  SHellmich  GLudwig  K Die versorgong der Parakolostomiehernie nach Sugarbaker. Zentralbl Chir 1999;124 ((suppl 2)) 13- 17
PubMed
14.
Makela  JTTurko  PHLaitenen  ST Analysis of late stomal complications following ostomy surgery. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1997;86305- 310
PubMed
15.
Everingham  L The parastomal hernia dilemma. World Counc Enterostomal Therapists J 1998;1832- 34
16.
Tretbar  L Kirurgi vid stomikomplikationer. Stomijournalen: Nordisk Tidskrift För Stomi Vård 1988;210- 11
17.
Carne  PWRobertson  GMFrizelle  FA Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2003;90784- 793
PubMedArticle
18.
Eldrup  JWied  UBishoff  NMoller-Pedersen  V Parakolostomihernier: incidens og relation till stomiens placering. Ugeskr Laeger 1982;1443742- 3743
PubMed
19.
Williams  JGEtherington  RHayward  MWHughes  LE Paraileostomy hernia: a clinical and radiological study. Br J Surg 1990;771355- 1357
PubMedArticle
20.
Kronborg  OKramhohft  JBacker  OSprechler  M Late complications following operations for cancer of the rectum and anus. Dis Colon Rectum 1974;17750- 753
PubMedArticle
21.
Martin  LFoster  G Parastomal hernia. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1996;7881- 84
PubMed
22.
Rubin  MSSchoetz  DJ  JrMatthews  JB Parastomal hernia: is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg 1994;129413- 418
PubMedArticle
23.
Kasperk  RKlinge  USchumpelick  V The repair of large parastomal hernias using a midline approach and a prosthetic mesh in the sublay position. Am J Surg 2000;179186- 188
PubMedArticle
24.
Stephenson  BMPhillips  RK Parastomal hernia: local resiting and mesh repair. Br J Surg 1995;821395- 1396
PubMedArticle
25.
Amin  SNArmitage  NCAbercrombie  JFScholefield  JH Lateral repair of parastomal hernia. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001;83206- 208
PubMed
26.
Rosin  JDBonardi  RA Paracolostomy hernia repair with Marlex mesh: a new technique. Dis Colon Rectum 1977;20299- 302
PubMedArticle
27.
Light  HG A secure end colostomy technique. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;17467- 68
PubMed
28.
Bayer  IKyzer  SChaimoff  C A new approach to primary strengthening of colostomy with Marlex mesh to prevent paracolostomy hernia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;163579- 580
PubMed
29.
Schumpelick  VKlosterhafen  BMüller  MKlinge  U Minimized polypropylene meshes for preperitoneal mesh plasty in incisional hernia. Chirurg 1999;70422- 430
PubMedArticle
30.
Jänes  ACengiz  YIsraelsson  LA Randomized clinical trial of the use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2004;91280- 282
PubMedArticle
31.
Luijendijk  RWHop  WCJvan den Tol  MP A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 2000;343392- 398
PubMedArticle
32.
Israelsson  LAJönsson  LWimo  A Cost analysis of incisional hernia repair by suture or mesh. Hernia 2003;7114- 117
PubMedArticle
33.
Cengiz  YIsraelsson  LA Incisional hernias in midline incisions: an eight-year follow up. Hernia 1998;2175- 177Article
Original Article
December 01, 2004

Preventing Parastomal Hernia With a Prosthetic MeshA Randomized Study

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Sundsvalls sjukhus, Sundsvall (Drs J[[auml]]nes and Cengiz), and Department of Surgery and Perioperative Science, Ume[[aring]] University, Ume[[aring]] (Dr Israelsson), Sweden.

Arch Surg. 2004;139(12):1356-1358. doi:10.1001/archsurg.139.12.1356
Abstract

Hypothesis  Parastomal hernia is a common complication following colostomy. The lowest recurrence rate has been produced when repair is with a prosthetic mesh. This study evaluated the effect on stoma complications of using a mesh during the primary operation.

Design  Randomized clinical study.

Methods  Patients undergoing permanent colostomy were randomized to have either a conventional stoma or the addition of a mesh placed in a sublay position. The mesh used was a large-pore lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content and a high proportion of absorbable material.

Results  Twenty-seven patients had a conventional stoma, and in 27 patients the mesh was used. No infection, fistula formation, or pain occurred (observation time, 12-38 months). At the 12-month follow-up, parastomal hernia was present in 13 of 26 patients without a mesh and in 1 of 21 patients in whom the mesh was used.

Conclusions  A lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content and a high proportion of absorbable material placed in a sublay position at the stoma site is not associated with complications and significantly reduces the rate of parastomal hernia.

A parastomal hernia may be regarded as an incisional hernia related to an abdominal wall stoma.1 After the construction of a stoma, parastomal hernia has been reported to occur in up to 50% of patients, no matter what modification of the surgical technique is used.217 In 2 studies, a lower rate has been reported with the stoma brought out through the rectus abdominis muscle, although other studies have not confirmed this.11,17,18

One third of parastomal hernias require surgical intervention, but even if there are many surgical options available, the results are very disappointing.17 Thus, recurrence rates of between 30% and 76% have been reported after local aponeurotic repair or stoma relocation.3,11,17,1923 Better results have been produced with prosthetic mesh repair.2125

It has been suggested that placing a mesh during the primary operation may reduce the rate of parastomal hernia,26,27 but there is only 1 nonrandomized study reported.28 A large-pore lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content and a high proportion of absorbable material, associated with a low degree of inflammation, is currently available.23,29 This study evaluated stoma complications in patients randomized to have either a conventional stoma or the same procedure with the addition of the lightweight mesh placed in a sublay position. Early results from this study have previously been reported.30 Late results from the 12-month follow-up are presented here.

METHODS

Between January 10, 2001, and March 20, 2003, patients scheduled to have permanent colostomy entered the study. Patients who had a loop enterostoma and those with a very short life expectancy were not included. Patients were randomized to either a conventional stoma through the rectus abdominis muscle or to the same procedure with the addition of a mesh. Randomization was performed by opening consecutively numbered sealed envelopes.

Access to the abdominal cavity was through a midline incision. When a prosthetic mesh was used, it was placed dorsal to the rectus abdominis muscle and anterior to the posterior rectus sheath. The Vypro (Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany) mesh was cut to 10 × 10 cm in size, and the bowel was brought out through a cross cut in its center. An absorbable stitch fixed the lateral corners of the mesh to the posterior rectus sheath. The medial corners of the mesh were grasped with a stitch of the running suture closing the midline incision. To prevent the mesh from coming into contact with abdominal contents, peritoneum on the side of the stoma was along the mesh included with the running suture.

Patient age, sex, and body mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared) were recorded. Whether the operation was an emergency and whether it was for a malignant tumor, diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon or inflammatory bowel disease was recorded. Wound infection and infection associated with the mesh were recorded continually. Patients were examined, straining in both an erect and a supine position, after 1 and 12 months for the presence of a parastomal hernia. A protrusion in the vicinity of the stoma was considered to be a hernia. Pain in the area of the stoma and signs of fistula formation were recorded.

The study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill). Mean values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to determine statistical significance; P<.05 was considered to be significant. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. With a difference of 30% in rates of parastomal hernia and a test power of 80% (α = .05), it was determined that each group would require 38 patients.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were included in the study. Twenty-seven patients were randomized to receive the mesh, but in 1 patient a mesh was not used because the posterior rectus sheath could not be dissected free from the muscle because of severe scarring after previous surgery (Figure). Patient and operative characteristics were similar in the 2 groups of patients (Table 1).

No instance of wound infection, infection associated with the mesh, fistula formation, or pain associated with the stoma was recorded in any patient during the observation period of 12 to 38 months (mean, 24 months; 95% confidence interval, 22-27). Within the first year, 7 patients died of malignant disease. Twenty-six patients who had a conventional stoma and 21 with the mesh attended the 12-month follow-up examination. Parastomal hernia was present in 13 patients without a mesh and in 1 of those in whom the mesh was used (Table 2).

COMMENT

No complication associated with the bowel being brought out through the mesh was recorded, and in particular no infection was encountered. Thus, it seems to be a safe procedure to place a lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content in a sublay position in the vicinity of the bowel. The high rate of parastomal hernia noted in the group of patients who had a conventional stoma is in congruence with previous reports. A very low rate of parastomal hernia was present in the group of patients in whom a mesh was used. Thus, a mesh placed during the primary operation seems to be a safe way to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia.

A parastomal hernia may be regarded as an incisional hernia related to an abdominal wall stoma.1 It could also be claimed that constructing a stoma actually denotes creating an incisional hernia, since it is characterized by abdominal contents protruding through a defect in the abdominal wall. Then a mesh placed during the primary operation when constructing a stoma is in congruence with the repair of an incisional hernia with a mesh.31,32

That the mesh was placed outside the abdominal cavity was probably important in terms of the low complication rate, as the only intestine in contact with the mesh is the bowel passing through the abdominal wall. It is technically a very easy and swift procedure to place a mesh in a sublay position. It is a procedure that can be performed in almost all patients. In only 1 patient with severe scarring after previous surgery in the area of the abdominal wall considered appropriate for the colostomy, a mesh could not be used. Because the bowel was always opened, all laparotomies were contaminated. However, because of the difficulty of obtaining informed consent from patients for inclusion in the study in an emergency situation, few laparotomies were severely contaminated.

To assess the long-term rate of complications, these patients will be observed for 5 years. The possibility of late-appearing infection, fistula formation, or the development of strictures can then be evaluated. There is no guidance available from any previous long-term study regarding the appropriate definition of parastomal hernia used at the 12-month follow-up examination. In accordance with the experience with incisional hernia, a wide definition was used in the present study.33 With a similar definition of incisional hernia used, such hernias are generally detected at the 12-month follow-up, and very few appear later.33 We do not know if this is also the case with parastomal hernia, but a long term follow-up may provide the answer to this question.

This study had to be stopped because it was determined to be unethical to continue with the randomized study when it became evident that use of the mesh involved a dramatically lower rate of parastomal hernia.30 We now use a prosthetic mesh for all colostomies, including emergencies, and intend to monitor these patients for 5 years as well. It will then become evident if a low rate of infection is also encountered in patients with gross contamination.

In the mesh used in this study, the absorbable material is a multifilament. In a new mesh now available in Europe and the United States (Ultrapro; Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany), both materials are monofilaments, which may offer advantages concerning the risk of infection.

We conclude that a lightweight mesh with a reduced polypropylene content and a high proportion of absorbable material placed in a sublay position at the stoma site is not associated with complications and significantly reduces the rate of parastomal hernia.

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Arthur Jänes, MD, Kirurgkliniken, Sundsvalls sjukhus, SE-851 86 Sundsvall, Sweden (arthur.janes@lvn.se).

Accepted for Publication: June 21, 2004.

References
1.
Pearl  RK Parastomal hernias. World J Surg 1989;13569- 572
PubMedArticle
2.
Birnbaum  WFerrier  P Complications of abdominal colostomy. Am J Surg 1952;8364- 67
PubMedArticle
3.
Burns  FJ Complications of colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1970;13448- 450
PubMedArticle
4.
Abrams  BLAlsikafi  FHWaterman  NG Colostomy: a new look at morbidity and mortality. Am Surg 1979;45462- 464
PubMed
5.
Burgess  PMatthew  VVDevlin  HB A review of terminal colostomy complications following abdominoperineal resection for carcinoma. Br J Surg 1984;711004
6.
Cevese  PGD’Amico  DFBiasiato  R  et al.  Peristomal hernia following end-colostomy: a conservative approach. Ital J Surg Sci 1984;14207- 209
PubMed
7.
Cheung  MT Complications of an abdominal stoma: an analysis of 322 stomas. Aust N Z J Surg 1995;65808- 811
PubMedArticle
8.
Londono-Schimmer  EELeong  APPhillips  RK Life table analysis of stomal complications following colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37916- 920
PubMedArticle
9.
Ortiz  HSara  MJArmendariz  Pde Miguel  MMarti  JChocarro  C Does the frequency of paracolostomy hernias depend on the position of the colostomy in the abdominal wall? Int J Colorectal Dis 1994;965- 67
PubMedArticle
10.
Pearl  RKPrasad  MLOrsay  CPAbcarian  HTan  ABMelzl  MT Early local complications from intestinal stomas. Arch Surg 1985;1201145- 1147
PubMedArticle
11.
Sjodahl  RAnderberg  BBolin  T Parastomal hernia in relation to site of the abdominal stoma. Br J Surg 1988;75339- 341
PubMedArticle
12.
Balslev  A Kolostomitilvaerelse. Ugeskr Laeger 1973;1352799- 2804
PubMed
13.
Stelzner  SHellmich  GLudwig  K Die versorgong der Parakolostomiehernie nach Sugarbaker. Zentralbl Chir 1999;124 ((suppl 2)) 13- 17
PubMed
14.
Makela  JTTurko  PHLaitenen  ST Analysis of late stomal complications following ostomy surgery. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1997;86305- 310
PubMed
15.
Everingham  L The parastomal hernia dilemma. World Counc Enterostomal Therapists J 1998;1832- 34
16.
Tretbar  L Kirurgi vid stomikomplikationer. Stomijournalen: Nordisk Tidskrift För Stomi Vård 1988;210- 11
17.
Carne  PWRobertson  GMFrizelle  FA Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2003;90784- 793
PubMedArticle
18.
Eldrup  JWied  UBishoff  NMoller-Pedersen  V Parakolostomihernier: incidens og relation till stomiens placering. Ugeskr Laeger 1982;1443742- 3743
PubMed
19.
Williams  JGEtherington  RHayward  MWHughes  LE Paraileostomy hernia: a clinical and radiological study. Br J Surg 1990;771355- 1357
PubMedArticle
20.
Kronborg  OKramhohft  JBacker  OSprechler  M Late complications following operations for cancer of the rectum and anus. Dis Colon Rectum 1974;17750- 753
PubMedArticle
21.
Martin  LFoster  G Parastomal hernia. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1996;7881- 84
PubMed
22.
Rubin  MSSchoetz  DJ  JrMatthews  JB Parastomal hernia: is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg 1994;129413- 418
PubMedArticle
23.
Kasperk  RKlinge  USchumpelick  V The repair of large parastomal hernias using a midline approach and a prosthetic mesh in the sublay position. Am J Surg 2000;179186- 188
PubMedArticle
24.
Stephenson  BMPhillips  RK Parastomal hernia: local resiting and mesh repair. Br J Surg 1995;821395- 1396
PubMedArticle
25.
Amin  SNArmitage  NCAbercrombie  JFScholefield  JH Lateral repair of parastomal hernia. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001;83206- 208
PubMed
26.
Rosin  JDBonardi  RA Paracolostomy hernia repair with Marlex mesh: a new technique. Dis Colon Rectum 1977;20299- 302
PubMedArticle
27.
Light  HG A secure end colostomy technique. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;17467- 68
PubMed
28.
Bayer  IKyzer  SChaimoff  C A new approach to primary strengthening of colostomy with Marlex mesh to prevent paracolostomy hernia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;163579- 580
PubMed
29.
Schumpelick  VKlosterhafen  BMüller  MKlinge  U Minimized polypropylene meshes for preperitoneal mesh plasty in incisional hernia. Chirurg 1999;70422- 430
PubMedArticle
30.
Jänes  ACengiz  YIsraelsson  LA Randomized clinical trial of the use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2004;91280- 282
PubMedArticle
31.
Luijendijk  RWHop  WCJvan den Tol  MP A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 2000;343392- 398
PubMedArticle
32.
Israelsson  LAJönsson  LWimo  A Cost analysis of incisional hernia repair by suture or mesh. Hernia 2003;7114- 117
PubMedArticle
33.
Cengiz  YIsraelsson  LA Incisional hernias in midline incisions: an eight-year follow up. Hernia 1998;2175- 177Article
×