4.3 Article

Use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a randomized controlled trial

Journal

HERNIA
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 661-667

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-012-0952-z

Keywords

Parastomal; Hernia; Mesh; Prevention; Laparoscopy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prevention of parastomal hernia represents an important aim when a permanent stoma is necessary. The objective of this work is to assess whether implantation of a prophylactic prosthetic mesh during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection contributed to reduce the incidence of parastomal hernia. Rectal cancer patients undergoing elective laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy were randomized to placement of a large-pore lightweight mesh in the intraperitoneal/onlay position by the laparoscopic approach (study group) or to the control group (no mesh). Parastomal hernia was defined radiologically by a CT scan performed after 12 months of surgery. The usefulness of subcutaneous fat thickness measured by CT to discriminate patients at risk of parastomal hernia was assessed by ROC curve analysis. Thirty-six patients were randomized, 19 to the mesh group and 17 to the control group. Parastomal hernia was detected in 50 % of patients in the mesh group and in 93.8 % of patients in the control group (P = 0.008). The AUC for thickness of the subcutaneous abdominal was 0.819 (P = 0.004) and the optimal threshold 23 mm. Subcutaneous fat thickness a parts per thousand yen23 mm was a significant predictor of parastomal hernia (odds ratio 15.7, P = 0.010), whereas insertion of a mesh was a protective factor (odds ratio 0.06, P = 0.031). Use of prophylactic large-pore lightweight mesh in the intraperitoneal/onlay position by a purely laparoscopic approach reduced the incidence of parastomal hernia formation. Subcutaneous fat thickness a parts per thousand yen23 mm measured by CT was an independent predictor of parastomal hernia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available