Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sugarbaker Versus Keyhole Repair for Parastomal Hernia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

  • SSAT Quick Shot Presentation
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract

Introduction

Parastomal hernia is a debilitating complication of stoma creation. Parastomal hernia repair with mesh reduces recurrence rates in open and laparoscopic settings. Recent comparative studies conflict with previously pooled data on optimal mesh repair technique. The objective of this study is to examine parastomal hernia recurrence rates after Sugarbaker and keyhole repairs by performing an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Methods

A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane database, SCOPUS, and the PROSPERO registry was performed according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021290483). Studies comparing parastomal hernia recurrences after Sugarbaker and keyhole repairs were included. Studies with overlapping patient cohorts (duplicate data), non-comparative studies, studies that did not report the primary outcome of interest, and studies not in the English language were excluded. Study bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Pooled mean differences (MD), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Forest plots and funnel plots were generated. Study quality was analyzed using MINORS. Additional subgroup analysis of modern studies was performed.

Results

Ten comparative studies published between 2005 and 2021 from 5 countries were included for analysis comprising 347 Sugarbaker repairs and 246 keyhole repairs. There were no differences in patient age, sex, or BMI between the groups. There was no difference between the groups regarding surgical site infection (OR 0.78; CI 0.31–1.98; P = 0.61) or post-operative bowel obstruction (OR 0.76; CI 0.23–2.56; P = 0.66). Sugarbaker repairs were significantly less often associated with parastomal hernia recurrence when compared to keyhole repairs (OR 0.38; CI 0.18–0.78; P = 0.008). There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies comparing parastomal hernia recurrence (I2 = 32%; P = 0.15). Quality analysis revealed a median MINORS score of 11 (range 6–16). Subgroup analysis of studies performed after the previously published pooled analysis (2015–2021) revealed no significant difference in parastomal hernia recurrence between the two groups (OR 0.58; CI 0.24–1.38; P = 0.22) with a significant subgroup effect (P = 0.05).

Conclusions

Though there were lower rates of parastomal hernia recurrence with Sugarbaker repairs on overall analysis, this phenomenon disappeared on subgroup analysis of modern studies. Randomized controlled trials with contemporary cohorts would help further evaluate these repairs and minimize potential bias.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sohn YJ, Moon SM, Shin US et al. Incidence and risk factors of parastomal hernia. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 2012; 28 (5): 241-246.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Carne PW, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA. Parastomal hernia. The British journal of surgery 2003; 90 (7): 784-793.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arumugam PJ, Bevan L, Macdonald L et al. A prospective audit of stomas--analysis of risk factors and complications and their management. Colorectal Dis 2003; 5 (1): 49-52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rubin MS, Schoetz DJ, Jr., Matthews JB. Parastomal hernia. Is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg 1994; 129 (4): 413–418; discussion 418–419.

  5. Hansson BM, Slater NJ, van der Velden AS et al. Surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Annals of surgery 2012; 255 (4): 685-695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheung MT, Chia NH, Chiu WY. Surgical treatment of parastomal hernia complicating sigmoid colostomies. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44 (2): 266-270.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Ludwig K. Repair of paracolostomy hernias with a prosthetic mesh in the intraperitoneal onlay position: modified Sugarbaker technique. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47 (2): 185-191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hansson BM, Morales-Conde S, Mussack T et al. The laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker technique is safe and has a low recurrence rate: a multicenter cohort study. Surg Endosc 2013; 27 (2): 494-500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sugarbaker PH. Peritoneal approach to prosthetic mesh repair of paraostomy hernias. Annals of surgery 1985; 201 (3): 344-346.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hansson BM, de Hingh IH, Bleichrodt RP. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair is feasible and safe: early results of a prospective clinical study including 55 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 2007; 21 (6): 989-993.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hansson BM, Bleichrodt RP, de Hingh IH. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a keyhole technique results in a high recurrence rate. Surg Endosc 2009; 23 (7): 1456-1459.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Safadi B. Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias: early results. Surg Endosc 2004; 18 (4): 676-680.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. LeBlanc KA, Bellanger DE, Whitaker JM et al. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair. Hernia 2005; 9 (2): 140-144.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berger D, Bientzle M. Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias: a single surgeon’s experience in 66 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50 (10): 1668-1673.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mancini GJ, McClusky DA, 3rd, Khaitan L et al. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a nonslit mesh technique. Surg Endosc 2007; 21 (9): 1487-1491.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McLemore EC, Harold KL, Efron JE et al. Parastomal hernia: short-term outcome after laparoscopic and conventional repairs. Surg Innov 2007; 14 (3): 199-204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Muysoms F. Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias with a modified Sugarbaker technique. Acta Chir Belg 2007; 107 (4): 476-480.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Berger D, Bientzle M. Polyvinylidene fluoride: a suitable mesh material for laparoscopic incisional and parastomal hernia repair! A prospective, observational study with 344 patients. Hernia 2009; 13 (2): 167-172.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Craft RO, Huguet KL, McLemore EC et al. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair. Hernia 2008; 12 (2): 137-140.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pastor DM, Pauli EM, Koltun WA et al. Parastomal hernia repair: a single center experience. Jsls 2009; 13 (2): 170-175.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Jani K. Laparoscopic paracolostomy hernia repair: a retrospective case series at a tertiary care center. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2010; 20 (6): 395-398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wara P, Andersen LM. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernia using a bilayer mesh with a slit. Surg Endosc 2011; 25 (2): 526-530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Asif A, Ruiz M, Yetasook A et al. Laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker technique results in superior recurrence rate. Surg Endosc 2012; 26 (12): 3430-3434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mizrahi H, Bhattacharya P, Parker MC. Laparoscopic slit mesh repair of parastomal hernia using a designated mesh: long-term results. Surg Endosc 2012; 26 (1): 267-270.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. DeAsis FJ, Lapin B, Gitelis ME et al. Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: A meta-analysis. World journal of gastroenterology 2015; 21 (28): 8670-8677.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Gameza VA, Bell Lybecker M, Wara P. Laparoscopic Keyhole Versus Sugarbaker Repair in Parastomal Hernia: A Long-Term Case-Controlled Prospective Study of Consecutive Patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2020; 30 (7): 783-789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mäkäräinen-Uhlbäck E, Vironen J, Falenius V et al. Parastomal Hernia: A Retrospective Nationwide Cohort Study Comparing Different Techniques with Long-Term Follow-Up. World journal of surgery 2021; 45 (6): 1742-1749.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Oma E, Pilsgaard B, Jorgensen LN. Clinical outcomes after parastomal hernia repair with a polyester monofilament composite mesh: a cohort study of 79 consecutive patients. Hernia 2018; 22 (2): 371-377.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McKibbon KA, Walker-Dilks C, Haynes RB et al. Beyond ACP Journal Club: how to harness MEDLINE for prognosis problems. ACP J Club 1995; 123 (1): A12-14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73 (9): 712-716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wells G SB, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2021. 2013.

  32. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2008; 336 (7650): 924-926.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC medical research methodology 2005; 5: 13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021.

  35. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959; 22 (4): 719-748.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. West SL, Gartlehner G, Mansfield AJ et al. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. Comparative Effectiveness Review Methods: Clinical Heterogeneity, Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) 2010.

  37. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Köhler G, Mayer F, Wundsam H et al. Changes in the Surgical Management of Parastomal Hernias Over 15 Years: Results of 135 Cases. World journal of surgery 2015; 39 (11): 2795-2804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 1997; 315 (7109): 629-634.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sterne JAC, Harbord RM. Funnel Plots in Meta-analysis. The Stata Journal 2004; 4 (2): 127-141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H et al. Risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrence after parastomal hernia repair: a nationwide study. Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56 (11): 1265-1272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. DeAsis FJ, Linn JG, Lapin B et al. Modified laparoscopic Sugarbaker repair decreases recurrence rates of parastomal hernia. Surgery 2015; 158 (4): 954–959; discussion 959–961.

  43. Hansson BM, van Nieuwenhoven EJ, Bleichrodt RP. Promising new technique in the repair of parastomal hernia. Surg Endosc 2003; 17 (11): 1789-1791.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Halm JA, de Wall LL, Steyerberg EW et al. Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World journal of surgery 2007; 31 (2): 423–429; discussion 430.

  45. Keller P, Totten CF, Plymale MA et al. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair delays recurrence relative to open repair. Surg Endosc 2021; 35 (1): 415-422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Soliani G, De Troia A, Portinari M et al. Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study with costs analysis on 269 patients. Hernia 2017; 21 (4): 609-618.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Richardson M GP, Donegan S. Interpretation of subgroup analyses in systematic reviews: A tutorial. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health 2019; 7 (2): 192-198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Paul Gahn, UTHSC Interlibrary Loan Staff

Carolyn Polk, UTHSC Interlibrary Loan Staff

Wanda Booker-Wade, UTHSC Interlibrary Loan Staff

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 910 Madison Avenue, Memphis, TN, 38163, USA

    Andrew M. Fleming, Justin A. Drake & Megan G. Gross

  2. College of Medicine, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, USA

    Alisa L. Phillips

  3. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Health System, Rochester, USA

    Danny Yakoub

  4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, USA

    Justin Monroe, Nathan M. Hinkle, David Shibata & Elizabeth H. Wood

Authors
  1. Andrew M. Fleming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alisa L. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justin A. Drake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Megan G. Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Danny Yakoub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Justin Monroe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nathan M. Hinkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David Shibata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Elizabeth H. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors included each contributed substantially to this research as per the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew M. Fleming.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fleming, A.M., Phillips, A.L., Drake, J.A. et al. Sugarbaker Versus Keyhole Repair for Parastomal Hernia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies. J Gastrointest Surg 27, 573–584 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-022-05412-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-022-05412-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation