Advertisement

Hernia

pp 1–6 | Cite as

Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after temporary loop ileostomy closure: choosing candidates for prophylactic mesh placement

  • A. G. BarranqueroEmail author
  • E. Tobaruela
  • M. Bajawi
  • P. Muñoz
  • J. Die Trill
  • J. C. Garcia-Perez
Original Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The primary aim of this study was to identify the incisional hernia rate after temporary loop ileostomy closure. Secondary outcomes were determining the risk factors linked to this incisional hernia, which could improve the patient selection for mesh prophylaxis.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients with temporary loop ileostomy reversal through a peristomal incision from 1st January 2011 to 1st January 2017 at our centre. Data were extracted from electronic clinical records: baseline patient characteristics, surgical factors and postoperative events. CT scans performed during follow-up were precisely analysed. Survival analysis was applied to identify risk factors for hernia development.

Results

129 patients were analysed of whom 15 (11.6%) developed an incisional hernia at previous ileostomy site. The median time for incisional hernia development was 11 months (IQR = 7–21) and the median follow-up time was 37 months (IQR = 22–57). The identified patient risk factors for hernia development in survival analysis were female sex, older age, higher Body Mass Index, clinically significant parastomal hernia, clinically detectable midline incisional hernia and major postoperative complications ranked as Clavien–Dindo grade III and IV.

Conclusions

Incisional hernia after temporary loop ileostomy is a relevant problem that affects at least one in every ten patients. The previously cited risk factors might favour its development, therefore the use of a prophylactic mesh should be considered in those high-risk patients.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Barranquero, Tobaruela, Bajawi, Muñoz, Die Trill, Garcia-Perez declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Research Committee (Comité de Ética de la Investigación con Medicamentos, 050-19 resolution) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and animal rights

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

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants before ileostomy closure. Permission to omit the informed consent for analysis of the already available data was obtained from the Institutional Research Committee (050-19 resolution).

References

  1. 1.
    Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Futaba K (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure. World J Surg 36(5):973–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Robles MS, Bakhtiar A, Young CJ (2019) Obesity is a significant risk factor for ileostomy site incisional hernia following reversal. ANZ J Surg 89:399–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaneko T, Funahashi K, Ushigome M et al (2018) Incidence of and risk factors for incisional hernia after closure of temporary ileostomy for colorectal malignancy. Hernia 23:743–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fazekas B, Fazekas B, Hendricks J et al (2017) The incidence of incisional hernias following ileostomy reversal in colorectal cancer patients treated with anterior resection. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(4):319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brook AJ, Mansfield SD, Daniels IR et al (2018) Incisional hernia following closure of loop ileostomy: the main predictor is the patient, not the surgeon. Surgeon 16(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rondelli F, Franco L, Balzarotti Canger RC et al (2018) Purse-string closure versus conventional primary closure of wound following stoma reversal: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 52:208–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu DSH, Banham E, Yellapu S (2013) Prophylactic mesh reinforcement reduces stomal site incisional hernia after ileostomy closure. World J Surg 37(9):2039–2045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maggiori L, Moszkowicz D, Zappa M et al (2015) Bioprosthetic mesh reinforcement during temporary stoma closure decreases the rate of incisional hernia: a blinded, case-matched study in 94 patients with rectal cancer. Surgery 158(6):1651–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warren JA, Beffa LR, Carbonell AM et al (2018) Prophylactic placement of permanent synthetic mesh at the time of ostomy closure prevents formation of incisional hernias. Surgery 163(4):839–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F et al (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13(4):407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335(7624):806–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Healthcare Safety Network, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017) Surgical site infection (SSI) event. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf. Accesed 1 Mar 2019
  14. 14.
    De Keersmaecker G, Beckers R, Heindryckx E et al (2016) Retrospective observational study on the incidence of incisional hernias after reversal of a temporary diverting ileostomy following rectal carcinoma resection with follow-up CT scans. Hernia 20(2):271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K et al (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 19(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Itatsu K, Yokoyama Y, Sugawara GH et al (2014) Incidence of and risk factors for incisional hernia after abdominal surgery. BJS 101:1439–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Kennedy-Dalby A et al (2018) Purse-string skin closure versus linear skin closure techniques in stoma closure: a comprehensive meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomised trials. Int J Colorectal Dis 33(10):1319–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Camacho-Mauries D, Rodriguez-Díaz JL, Salgado-Nesme N, González QH, Vergara-Fernández O (2013) Randomized clinical trial of intestinal ostomy takedown comparing pursestring wound closure vs conventional closure to eliminate the risk of wound infection. Dis Colon Rectum 56(2):205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sureshkumar S, Jubel K, Ali MS et al (2018) Comparing surgical site infection and scar cosmesis between conventional linear skin closure versus purse-string skin closure in stoma reversal—a randomized controlled trial. Cureus 10(2):e2181Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ClinicalTrials.gov (2019) Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). Identifier: NCT02238964, Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02238964. Accessed 17 Mar 2019
  21. 21.
    ClinicalTrials.gov (2019) Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). Identifier: NCT02226887, Prophylaxis of Ileostomy Closure Site Hernia by Placing Mesh (ILEOCLOSE). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02226887. Accessed 17 Mar 2019

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General and Digestive Surgery DepartmentUniversity Hospital Ramón Y CajalMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations