Hernia

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 183–198 | Cite as

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias

  • S. A. Antoniou
  • F. Agresta
  • J. M. Garcia Alamino
  • D. Berger
  • F. Berrevoet
  • H.-T. Brandsma
  • K. Bury
  • J. Conze
  • D. Cuccurullo
  • U. A. Dietz
  • R. H. Fortelny
  • C. Frei-Lanter
  • B. Hansson
  • F. Helgstrand
  • A. Hotouras
  • A. Jänes
  • L. F. Kroese
  • J. R. Lambrecht
  • I. Kyle-Leinhase
  • M. López-Cano
  • L. Maggiori
  • V. Mandalà
  • M. Miserez
  • A. Montgomery
  • S. Morales-Conde
  • M. Prudhomme
  • T. Rautio
  • N. Smart
  • M. Śmietański
  • M. Szczepkowski
  • C. Stabilini
  • F. E. Muysoms
Review

Abstract

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.

keywords

Parastomal hernia Stoma Ostomy Prevention Treatment Recurrence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The guidelines development group would like to thank Sarah Squire, representative of the Colostomy Association of the UK, and Wendy Osborne and Judy Hanley, representatives of the Association of Stoma Care Nurses UK, for their valuable input. Dr. William Hope, MD, FACS, Prof. Bruce Ramshaw, MD, FACS and Prof. Willem Bemelman, MD, PhD, are greatly acknowledged for performing the external assessments.

Funding

The project ‘European Hernia Society Guidelines on Prevention and Treatment of Parastomal Hernias’ was initiated and sponsored by the European Hernia Society.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

SAA declares no conflict of interest. FA declares no conflict of interest. JGA declares no conflict of interest. DB declares no conflict of interest. FB declares no conflict of interest. HTB declares no conflict of interest. KB declares no conflict of interest. JC declares conflict of interest not directly related to the submitted work (personal fees from Johnson & Johnson Ethicon, personal fees from BARD Davol). DC declares conflict of interest not directly related to the submitted work (grants and personal fees from W.L. Gore, personal fees from BARD Davol, personal fees from Johnson & Johnson and personal fees from MSD). UAD declares no conflict of interest. RHF declares no conflict of interest. CFL declares no conflict of interest. BH declares no conflict of interest. FH declares no conflict of interest. AH declares no conflict of interest. AJ declares no conflict of interest. LFK declares no conflict of interest. JRL declares no conflict of interest. IKL declares no conflict of interest. MLC declares conflict of interest not directly related to the submitted work (personal fees from Johnson & Johnson and personal fees from BARD Davol). MM declares conflict of interest not directly related to the submitted work (personal fees from Springer, personal fees from Aspide, grants and personal fees from Bard, personal fees from Braun, personal fees from Cook, grants and personal fees from Covidien, personal fees from Ethicon and personal fees from W.L. Gore) and he serves as co-editor of Hernia. AM serves as executive editor of Hernia. SMC declares conflict of interest not directly related to the submitted work (personal fees from Bard, personal fees from Gore, personal fees from Medtronic and personal fees from Olympus). MP declares no conflict of interest. TR declares no conflict of interest. NS declares conflict of interest not directly related to the submitted work (grants and personal fees from Medtronic). MS declares no conflict of interest. MS declares no conflict of interest. CS declares no conflict of interest. FEM declares conflict of interest not directly related to the submitted work (grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Medtronic, grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, grants and personal fees from Dynamesh, personal fees from Cousin Biotech and personal fees from BARD Davol).

Ethical approval

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article does not require informed consent due to the lack of human participants.

Supplementary material

10029_2017_1697_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (840 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 839 kb)
10029_2017_1697_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (390 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 390 kb)
10029_2017_1697_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (166 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 165 kb)
10029_2017_1697_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (335 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 334 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci 1:107–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Graham ID, Grimshaw J, Hanna SE, Littlejohns P, Makarski J, Zitzelsberger L, AGREE Next Steps Consortium (2010) AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. J Clin Epidemiol 63:1308–1311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group (2008) Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 336:1049–1051 (Erratum in: BMJ 2008;336) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Critical appraisal: notes and checklists. http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html. Accessed 26 Dec 2015
  5. 5.
    Vierimaa M, Klintrup K, Biancari F, Victorzon M, Carpelan-Holmström M, Kössi J, Kellokumpu I, Rauvala E, Ohtonen P, Mäkelä J, Rautio T (2015) Prospective, randomized study on the use of a prosthetic mesh for prevention of parastomal hernia of permanent colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 58:943–949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jänes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA (2009) Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up of a randomized study. World J Surg 33:118–121 (discussion 122–123) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Serra-Aracil X, Bombardo-Junca J, Moreno-Matias J, Darnell A, Mora-Lopez L, Alcantara-Moral M, Ayguavives-Garnica I, Navarro-Soto S (2009) Randomized, controlled, prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 249:583–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sohn YJ, Moon SM, Shin US, Jee SH (2012) Incidence and risk factors of parastomal hernia. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28:241–246CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Raet J, Delvaux G, Haentjens P, Van Nieuwenhove Y (2008) Waist circumference is an independent risk factor for the development of parastomal hernia after permanent colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1806–1809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shabbir J, Chaudhary BN, Dawson R (2012) A systematic review on the use of prophylactic mesh during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia formation. Colorectal Dis 14:931–936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wijeyekoon SP, Gurusamy K, El-Gendy K, Chan CL (2010) Prevention of parastomal herniation with biologic/composite prosthetic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Surg 211:637–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tam KW, Wei PL, Kuo LJ, Wu CH (2010) Systematic review of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. World J Surg 34:2723–2729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sajid MS, Kalra L, Hutson K, Sains P (2012) Parastomal hernia as a consequence of colorectal cancer resections can prophylactically be controlled by mesh insertion at the time of primary surgery: a literature based systematic review of published trials. Minerva Chir 67:289–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hardt J, Seyfried S, Weiß C, Post S, Kienle P, Herrle F (2016) A pilot single-centre randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of lateral pararectus abdominis compared with transrectus abdominis muscle stoma placement in patients with temporary loop ileostomies: the PATRASTOM trial. Colorectal Dis 18:O81–O90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leong AP, Londono-Schimmer EE, Phillips RK (1994) Life-table analysis of stomal complications following ileostomy. Br J Surg 81:727–729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Devlin HB, Kingsnorth A (1998) Management of abdominal hernias. Hodder Arnold Publishers, London, pp 177–178Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gil G, Szczepkowski M (2011) A new classification of parastomal hernias–from the experience at Bielański Hospital in Warsaw. Pol Przegl Chir 83:430–437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubin MS, Schoetz DJ, Matthews JB (1994) Parastomal hernia. Is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg 129:413–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moreno-Matias J, Serra-Aracil X, Darnell-Martin A, Bombardo-Junca J, Mora-Lopez L, Alcantara-Moral M, Rebasa P, Ayguavives-Garnica I, Navarro-Soto S (2009) The prevalence of parastomal hernia after formation of an end colostomy. A new clinico-radiological classification. Colorectal Dis 11:173–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seo SH, Kim HJ, Oh SY, Lee JH, Suh KW (2011) Computed tomography classification for parastomal hernia. J Korean Surg Soc 81:111–114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Śmietański M, Szczepkowski M, Alexandre JA, Berger D, Bury K, Conze J, Hansson B, Janes A, Miserez M, Mandala V, Montgomery A, Morales Conde S, Muysoms F (2014) European Hernia Society classification of parastomal hernias. Hernia 18:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Näsvall P, Wikner F, Gunnarsson U, Rutegård J, Strigård K (2014) A comparison between intrastomal 3D ultrasonography, CT scanning and findings at surgery in patients with stomal complaints. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:1263–1266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gurmu A, Matthiessen P, Nilsson S, Påhlman L, Rutegård J, Gunnarsson U (2011) The inter-observer reliability is very low at clinical examination of parastomal hernia. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:89–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lambrecht JR, Larsen SG, Reiertsen O, Vaktskjold A, Julsrud L, Flatmark K (2015) Prophylactic mesh at end-colostomy construction reduces parastomal hernia rate: a randomized trial. Colorectal Dis 17:O191–O197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jänes A, Weisby L, Israelsson LA (2011) Parastomal hernia: clinical and radiological definitions. Hernia 15:189–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sjödahl RI, Thorelius L, Hallböök OJ (2011) Ultrasonographic findings in patients with peristomal bulging. Scand J Gastroenterol 46:745–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strigård K, Gurmu A, Näsvall P, Påhlman P, Gunnarsson U (2013) Intrastomal 3D ultrasound; an inter- and intra-observer evaluation. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:43–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dietz UA, Winkler MS, Härtel RW, Fleischhacker A, Wiegering A, Isbert C, Jurowich Ch, Heuschmann P, Germer CT (2014) Importance of recurrence rating, morphology, hernial gap size, and risk factors in ventral and incisional hernia classification. Hernia 18:19–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cévese PG, D’Amico DF, Biasiato R, Frego MG, Tropea A, Giaconi MA, Bianchera GG (1984) Peristomal hernia following end-colostomy: a conservative approach. Ital J Surg Sci 14:207–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goligher JC (1958) Extraperitoneal colostomy or ileostomy. Br J Surg 46:97–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hardt J, Meerpohl JJ, Metzendorf MI, Kienle P, Post S, Herrle F (2013) Lateral pararectal versus transrectal stoma placement for prevention of parastomal herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD009487Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hong SY, Oh SY, Lee JH, Kim DY, Suh KW (2013) Risk factors for parastomal hernia: based on radiological definition. J Korean Surg Soc 84:43–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hammond TM, Huang A, Prosser K, Frye JN, Williams NS (2008) Parastomal hernia prevention using a novel collagen implant: a randomised controlled phase 1 study. Hernia 12:475–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wijeyekoon SP, Gurusamy K, El-Gendy K, Chan CL (2010) Prevention of parastomal herniation with biologic/composite prosthetic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Surg 211:637–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    López-Cano M, Lozoya-Trujillo R, Quiroga S, Sánchez JL, Vallribera F, Martí M, Jiménez LM, Armengol-Carrasco M, Espín E (2012) Use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia 16:661–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    López-Cano M, Serra-Aracil X, Mora L, Sánchez-García JL, Jiménez-Gómez LM, Martí M, Vallribera F, Fraccalvieri D, Serracant A, Kreisler E, Biondo S, Espín E, Navarro-Soto S, Armengol-Carrasco M (2016) Preventing parastomal hernia using a modified Sugarbaker technique with composite mesh during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 264:923–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fleshman JW, Beck DE, Hyman N, Wexner SD, Bauer J, George V, PRISM Study Group (2014) 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. Dis Colon Rectum 57:623–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brandsma HT, Hansson BM, Aufenacker TJ, van Geldere D, van Lammeren FM, Mahabier C, Steenvoorde P, de Vries Reilingh TS, Wiezer RJ, de Wilt JH, Bleichrodt RP, Rosman C (2016) Prophylactic mesh placement to prevent parastomal hernia, early results of a prospective multicentre randomized trial. Hernia 20:535–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brandsma HT, Hansson BM, Aufenacker TJ, van Geldere D, Lammeren FM, Mahabier C, Makai P, Steenvoorde P, de Vries Reilingh TS, Wiezer MJ, de Wilt JH, Bleichrodt RP, Rosman C, Dutch Prevent Study Group (2016) Prophylactic mesh placement during formation of an end-colostomy reduces the rate of parastomal hernia: short-term results of the Dutch PREVENT-trial. Ann Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001903 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Figel NA, Rostas JW, Ellis CN (2012) Outcomes using a bioprosthetic mesh at the time of permanent stoma creation in preventing a parastomal hernia: a value analysis. Am J Surg 203:323–326 (discussion 326) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee L, Saleem A, Landry T, Latimer E, Chaudhury P, Feldman LS (2014) Cost effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent parastomal hernia in patients undergoing permanent colostomy for rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 218:82–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Berger D (2008) Prevention of parastomal hernias by prophylactic use of a specially designed intraperitoneal onlay mesh (Dynamesh IPST). Hernia 12:243–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Köhler G, Hofmann A, Lechner M, Mayer F, Wundsam H, Emmanuel K, Fortelny RH (2016) Prevention of parastomal hernias with 3D funnel meshes in intraperitoneal onlay position by placement during initial stoma formation. Hernia 20:151–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Riansuwan W, Hull TL, Millan MM, Hammel JP (2010) Surgery of recurrent parastomal hernia: direct repair or relocation? Colorectal Dis 12:681–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rubin MS, Schoetz DJ Jr, Matthews JB (1994) Parastomal hernia. Is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg 129:413–418 (discussion 418–419) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hansson BM, Slater NJ, van der Velden AS, Groenewoud HM, Buyne OR, de Hingh IH, Bleichrodt RP (2012) Surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg 255:685–695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Halabi WJ, Jafari MD, Carmichael JC, Nguyen VQ, Mills S, Phelan M, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Laparoscopic versus open repair of parastomal hernias: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 27:4067–4072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pastor DM, Pauli EM, Koltun WA, Haluck RS, Shope TR, Poritz LS (2009) Parastomal hernia repair: a single center experience. JSLS 13:170–175PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Al Shakarchi J, Williams JG (2014) Systematic review of open techniques for parastomal hernia repair. Tech Coloproctol 18:427–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    DeAsis FJ, Lapin B, Gitelis ME, Ujiki MB (2015) Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21:8670–8677CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hansson BM, Morales-Conde S, Mussack T, Valdes J, Muysoms FE, Bleichrodt RP (2013) The laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker technique is safe and has a low recurrence rate: a multicenter cohort study. Surg Endosc 27:494–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Berger D, Bientzle M (2009) Polyvinylidene fluoride: a suitable mesh material for laparoscopic incisional and parastomal hernia repair! A prospective, observational study with 344 patients. Hernia 13:167–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Szczepkowski M, Skoneczny P, Przywózka A, Czyżewski P, Bury K (2015) New minimally invasive technique of parastomal hernia repair—methods and review. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 10:1–7PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Slater NJ, Hansson BM, Buyne OR, Hendriks T, Bleichrodt RP (2011) Repair of parastomal hernias with biologic grafts: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1252–1258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Warwick AM, Velineni R, Smart NJ, Daniels IR (2016) Onlay parastomal hernia repair with cross-linked porcine dermal collagen biologic mesh: long-term results. Hernia 20:321–325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tandon A, Shahzad K, Pathak S, Oommen CM, Nunes QM, Smart N (2016) Parietex™ Composite mesh versus DynaMesh®-IPOM for laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 98:568–573CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Antoniou
    • 1
  • F. Agresta
    • 2
  • J. M. Garcia Alamino
    • 3
  • D. Berger
    • 4
  • F. Berrevoet
    • 5
  • H.-T. Brandsma
    • 6
  • K. Bury
    • 7
  • J. Conze
    • 8
    • 9
    • 10
  • D. Cuccurullo
    • 11
  • U. A. Dietz
    • 12
  • R. H. Fortelny
    • 13
  • C. Frei-Lanter
    • 14
  • B. Hansson
    • 15
  • F. Helgstrand
    • 16
  • A. Hotouras
    • 17
  • A. Jänes
    • 18
  • L. F. Kroese
    • 19
  • J. R. Lambrecht
    • 20
  • I. Kyle-Leinhase
    • 21
  • M. López-Cano
    • 22
  • L. Maggiori
    • 23
  • V. Mandalà
    • 24
  • M. Miserez
    • 25
  • A. Montgomery
    • 26
  • S. Morales-Conde
    • 27
  • M. Prudhomme
    • 28
  • T. Rautio
    • 29
  • N. Smart
    • 30
  • M. Śmietański
    • 31
    • 32
  • M. Szczepkowski
    • 33
    • 34
  • C. Stabilini
    • 35
  • F. E. Muysoms
    • 21
  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryUniversity Hospital of HerakionCreteGreece
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryAdriaItaly
  3. 3.Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.Clinic of Abdominal, Thoracic and Pediatric SurgeryKlinikum Mittelbaden/BalgBaden-BadenGermany
  5. 5.Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver TransplantationGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Colorectal SurgeryWestern General HospitalEdinburghUK
  7. 7.Department Cardiac and Vascular SurgeryMedical University of GdańskGdańskPoland
  8. 8.Herniacenter Dr. Muschaweck/Dr. ConzeMunichGermany
  9. 9.Herniacenter Dr. Muschaweck/Dr. ConzeLondonUK
  10. 10.Department of General, Visceral and Transplant SurgeryUniversity Hospital, RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  11. 11.Department of General, Laparoscopic, and Robotic SurgeryOspedale Monaldi, Azienda Ospedaliera dei ColliNaplesItaly
  12. 12.Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Pediatric SurgeryUniversity Hospital of WuerzburgWuerzburgGermany
  13. 13.Certified Hernia Center, Department of General, Visceral and Oncological SurgeryWilhelminenspitalViennaAustria
  14. 14.Department of SurgeryKantonsspital WinterthurWinterthurSwitzerland
  15. 15.Department of SurgeryCanisius-Wilhelmina HospitalNijmegenThe Netherlands
  16. 16.Department of Surgery, Zealand University HospitalKøgeDenmark
  17. 17.National Bowel Research Centre, The Royal London HospitalLondonUnited Kingdom
  18. 18.Department of SurgerySundsvall HospitalSundsvallSweden
  19. 19.Department of SurgeryErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamNetherlands
  20. 20.Surgical DepartmentInnlandet Hospital TrustGjøvikNorway
  21. 21.Department of SurgeryMaria Middelares HospitalGhentBelgium
  22. 22.Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  23. 23.Department of Colorectal SurgeryBeaujon Hospital, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris VIIClichyFrance
  24. 24.Department of General SurgeryBuccheri La Ferla HospitalPalermoItaly
  25. 25.Department of Abdominal SurgeryUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  26. 26.Department of SurgerySkåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
  27. 27.University Hospital Virgen del RocíoSevillaSpain
  28. 28.Digestive Surgery DepartmentCHU NîmesNîmesFrance
  29. 29.Department of Surgery, Division of GastroenterologyMedical Research Center, Oulu University HospitalOuluFinland
  30. 30.Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit (HeSRU)Royal Devon and Exeter HospitalExeterUK
  31. 31.2nd Department of RadiologyMedical University of GdanskGdańskPoland
  32. 32.Department of General Surgery and Hernia Centre, District Hospital in PuckPuckPoland
  33. 33.Department of RehabilitationJózef Piłsudski University of Physical Education in WarsawWarsawPoland
  34. 34.Clinical Department of General and Colorectal SurgeryBielanski HospitalWarsawPoland
  35. 35.Department of SurgeryUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations