Hernia

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 371–377 | Cite as

Clinical outcomes after parastomal hernia repair with a polyester monofilament composite mesh: a cohort study of 79 consecutive patients

Original Article
  • 190 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Different techniques and mesh materials are used in parastomal hernia repair with recently reported recurrence rates ranging from 10 to 28%. The aim of this cohort study was to examine the risk of recurrence and chronic pain after Sugarbaker or keyhole parastomal hernia repair with intraperitoneal placement of a polyester monofilament macroporous composite mesh.

Methods

Data on all patients undergoing parastomal hernia repair with Parietex™ Composite Parastomal Mesh at our institution during a 4-year period were examined. Patients with urostomy were excluded. A team of three experienced surgeons performed all repairs. Follow-up including physical examination was done after 10 days, 6 and 12 months, and hereafter as annual structured telephone interviews. Patients suspected of hernia recurrence were offered computed tomography scan. Chronic pain was defined as pain requiring out-patient visit(s) and/or regular use of analgesics.

Results

79 patients (Sugarbaker, n = 69; keyhole, n = 10) were included. Of those, 72 procedures were performed laparoscopically and seven by open technique. Two patients were reoperated within 30 days with removal of the mesh. In total, seven (9%) patients had parastomal hernia recurrence (reoperation, n = 3; conservative management, n = 4) during follow-up of median 12 months (range 0–49 months). In univariable logistic analyses, type of stoma was associated with recurrence (ileostomy 28% vs colostomy 3%, p = 0.007). Three patients (4%) reported chronic pain.

Conclusion

In this study, we found low rates of recurrence and chronic pain following parastomal hernia repair using intraperitoneal reinforcement with a polyester monofilament composite mesh.

Keywords

Parastomal hernia repair Parietex parastomal mesh Recurrence Chronic pain 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Stoma care nurses Trine Borglit and Mette von Rosen conducted all primary follow-ups.

Compliance with ethical standards

Sources of funding

None.

Conflict of interest

EO has received a travel Grant from Medtronic. LNJ has received fees for educational activities and oral presentations from Medtronic, BARD and Acelity, and received funding for data collection and expert report drafting from Medtronic of the present material. BP has nothing to disclose.

Ethical statement

According to Danish law, approval from a local ethics committee was not required.

Statement on human rights

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Statement on the welfare of animals

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

Statement on informed consent

According to Danish law, informed consent from included individuals are not required for this type of study.

References

  1. 1.
    Carne PW, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA (2003) Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 90:784–793.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4220 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hotouras A, Murphy J, Thaha M, Chan CL (2013) The persistent challenge of parastomal herniation: a review of the literature and future developments. Colorectal Dis 15:e202–e214.  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12156 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Danielsen AK, Christensen BM, Mortensen J, Voergaard LL, Herlufsen P, Balleby L (2015) Establishment of a regional Danish database for patients with a stoma. Colorectal Dis 17:O27–O33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12848 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aquina CT, Iannuzzi JC, Probst CP, Kelly KN, Noyes K, Fleming FJ, Monson JR (2014) Parastomal hernia: a growing problem with new solutions. Dig Surg 31:366–376.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000369279 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Jorgensen LN, Wara P, Bisgaard T (2013) Risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrence after parastomal hernia repair: a nationwide study. Dis Colon Rectum 56:1265–1272.  https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182a0e6e2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeAsis FJ, Lapin B, Gitelis ME, Ujiki MB (2015) Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21:8670–8677.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i28.8670 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Danish Clinical Registries (RKKP) (2017) In English. http://www.rkkp.dk/in-english/. Accessed 28 June 2017
  8. 8.
    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 27:494–500.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2464-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suwa K, Nakajima S, Uno Y, Suzuki T, Sasaki S, Ushigome T, Eto K, Okamoto T, Yanaga K (2016) Laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker parastomal hernia repair with 2-point anchoring and zigzag tacking of Parietex Parastomal Mesh technique. Surg Endosc 30:5628–5634.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4927-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 27:4067–4072.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3062-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansson BM, van Nieuwenhoven EJ, Bleichrodt RP (2003) Promising new technique in the repair of parastomal hernia. Surg Endosc 17:1789–1791.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-9249-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansson BM, Bleichrodt RP, de Hingh IH (2009) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a keyhole technique results in a high recurrence rate. Surg Endosc 23:1456–1459.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0253-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schreinemacher MH, van Barneveld KW, Dikmans RE, Gijbels MJ, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2013) Coated meshes for hernia repair provide comparable intraperitoneal adhesion prevention. Surg Endosc 27:4202–4209.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3021-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeAsis FJ, Linn JG, Lapin B, Denham W, Carbray JM, Ujiki MB (2015) Modified laparoscopic Sugarbaker repair decreases recurrence rates of parastomal hernia. Surgery 158:954–959.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.04.052 (discussion 959–961) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 255:685–695.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824b44b1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Neill CH, Borrazzo EC, Hyman NH (2015) Parastomal hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 19:766–769.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2717-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gillern S, Bleier JI (2014) Parastomal hernia repair and reinforcement: the role of biologic and synthetic materials. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 27:162–171.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1394090 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1373–1379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digestive Disease Center, Bispebjerg HospitalUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen NVDenmark

Personalised recommendations