Hernia

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 475–481 | Cite as

Parastomal hernia prevention using a novel collagen implant: a randomised controlled phase 1 study

  • T. M. Hammond
  • A. Huang
  • K. Prosser
  • J. N. Frye
  • N. S. Williams
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Parastomal hernias can be prevented or repaired using synthetic mesh; however, reported complications include infection, fibrosis and potential bowel erosion. The study aim was to assess the safety, feasibility and potential efficacy of using a prophylactic collagen implant.

Methods

Twenty patients undergoing defunctioning stomas were randomised to a conventional procedure or reinforcement with the implant. Follow-up included regular symptom questionnaires, clinical examination, stoma site ultrasound, and serum inflammatory markers.

Results

Ten patients (four males; mean BMI 26.3) had a conventional stoma, and ten (three males; mean BMI 26.3) received the implant. At a median of 6.5 months follow-up, a parastomal hernia was clinically evident in three of ten patients without the implant, and in none of ten patients with the implant. There were no clinical complications, ultrasound evidence of chronic seromas or serological evidence of a systemic inflammatory response.

Conclusions

Xenogeneic collagen has been demonstrated to aid soft tissue reinforcement. In this study, in contrast to published data relating to the use of conventional synthetic mesh, there were no complications related to infection or the implant’s proximity to the bowel. This trial demonstrates that the implant is safe, feasible to use and has the potential to prevent parastomal herniation.

Keywords

Parastomal Hernia Prevention Collagen Mesh 

References

  1. 1.
    Carne PW, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA (2003) Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 90:784–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Israelsson LA (2005) Preventing and treating parastomal hernia. World J Surg 29:1086–1089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pearl RK (1989) Parastomal hernias. World J Surg 13:569–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGrath A, Porrett T, Heyman B (2006) Parastomal hernia: an exploration of the risk factors and the implications. Br J Nurs 15:317–321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuthbertson AM, Collins JP (1947) Strangulated para-ileostomy hernia. Aust N Z J Surg 47:86–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gabriel WB, Lloyd-Davies OV (1935) Colostomy. Br J Surg 22:520–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goligher JC, Lloyd-Davies OV, Robertson CT (1951) Small-gut obstructions following combined excision of the rectum with special reference to strangulation round the colostomy. Br J Surg 38:467–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janes, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA (2004) Randomised clinical trial of the use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 91:280–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin L, Foster G (1996) Parastomal hernia—review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 78:81–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marimuthu K, Vijayasekar C, Ghosh D, Mathew G (2006) Prevention of parastomal hernia using preperitoneal mesh: a prospective observational study. Colorectal Dis 8:672–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gogenur I, Mortensen J, Harvald T, Rosenberg J, Fischer A (2006) Prevention of parastomal hernia by placement of a polypropylene mesh at the primary operation. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1131–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stoppa R (2003) About biomaterials and how they work in groin hernia repairs. Hernia 7:57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodgers BM, Maher JW, Talbert JL (1981) The use of preserved human dura for closure of abdominal wall and diaphragmatic defects. Ann Surg 193:606–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaufman Z, Engelberg M, Zager M (1981) Fecal fistula: a late complication of Marlex mesh repair. Dis Colon Rectum 24:543–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stone HH, Fabian TC, Turkelson ML, Jurkiewicz MJ (1981) Management of acute full-thickness losses of the abdominal wall. Ann Surg 193:612–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schneider R, Herrington JL, Granda AM (1979) Marlex mesh in repair of a diaphramatic defect later eroding into the distal esophagus and stomach. Am Surg 45:337–339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Voyles CR, Richardson JD, Bland KI (1981) Emergency abdominal wall reconstruction with polypropylene mesh. Short-term benefits versus long-term complications. Ann Surg 194:219–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helton WS, Fisichella PM, Berger R, Horgan S, Espat NJ, Abcarian H (2005) Short-term outcomes with small intestinal submucosa for ventral abdominal hernia. Arch Surg 140:549–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smart N, Immanuel A, Mercer-Jones M (2007) Laparoscopic repair of a Littre’s hernia with porcine dermal collagen implant (Permacol). Hernia 11:373–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inan I, Gervaz P, Hagen M, Morel P (2007) Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernia using a porcine dermal collagen (Permacol) implant. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adedeji OA, Bailey CA, Varma JS (2002) Porcine dermal collagen graft in abdominal-wall reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 55:85–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liyanage SH, Purohit GS, Frye JN, Giordano P (2006) Anterior abdominal wall reconstruction with a Permacol implant. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 59:553–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacLeod TM, Williams G, Sanders R, Green CJ (2003) Prefabricated skin flaps in a rat model based on a dermal replacement matrix Permacol. Br J Plast Surg 56:775–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    MacLeod TM, Sarathchandra P, Williams G, Sanders R, Green CJ (2004) Evaluation of a porcine origin acellular dermal matrix and small intestinal submucosa as dermal replacements in preventing secondary skin graft contraction. Burns 30:431–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Macleod TM, Williams G, Sanders R, Green CJ (2005) Histological evaluation of Permacol as a subcutaneous implant over a 20-week period in the rat model. Br J Plast Surg 58:518–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaleya RN (2005) Evaluation of implant/host tissue interactions following intraperitoneal implantation of porcine dermal collagen prosthesis in the rat. Hernia 9:269–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zheng F, Lin Y, Verbeken E, Claerhout F, Fastrez M, De Ridder D, Deprest J (2004) Host response after reconstruction of abdominal wall defects with porcine dermal collagen in a rat model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1961–1970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hammond TM, Chin-Aleong J, Navsaria H, Williams NS (2008) Human in vivo cellular response to a cross-linked acellular collagen implant. Br J Surg 95:438–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jansen PL, Mertens PR, Klinge U, Schumpelick V (2004). The biology of hernia formation. Surgery 136:1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jarman-Smith ML, Bodamyali T, Stevens C, Howell JA, Horrocks M, Chaudhuri JB (2004) Porcine collagen crosslinking, degradation and its capability for fibroblast adhesion and proliferation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 15:925–932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. M. Hammond
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Huang
    • 1
  • K. Prosser
    • 1
  • J. N. Frye
    • 1
  • N. S. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Academic Surgery, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Science, The Royal London Hospital, Barts and The London NHS Trust, Queen Mary School of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Barnet, HertfordshireUK

Personalised recommendations