Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Hernia
Published in: Hernia 2/2022

Open Access 01-04-2022 | Computed Tomography | Original Article

Use of prophylactic stoma mesh is a risk factor for developing rectus abdominis muscle atrophy

Authors: S. Täckström, A. Chabok, K. Smedh, M. Nikberg

Published in: Hernia | Issue 2/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible risk factors for developing a parastomal hernia (PSH) in a cohort of rectal cancer patients with and without the application of a retro-muscular prophylactic mesh. The evaluated risk factors included the position of the stoma in the rectus abdominis muscle (RAM), RAM atrophy and shift of abdominal wall midline structures.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients treated with an abdominoperineal excision or Hartmann’s procedure between 2002 and 2015 at Västmanland Hospital, Sweden was included. Postoperative CT examinations were retrospectively reviewed regarding the presence of PSH and RAM atrophy and for measurements such as position of the stoma in the RAM.

Results

116 patients were included, with a median age of 71 years. 70 patients received a prophylactic stoma mesh. 55 patients (47%) had a parastomal hernia at three-year follow-up. Rectus abdominis muscle atrophy was significantly higher in the mesh group compared with the non-mesh group (37% vs 2%; P = 0.04). RAM atrophy was a significant independent protective factor for developing a PSH (P = 0.007; OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03–0.55).

Conclusion

Placement of a prophylactic retro-muscular stoma mesh resulted in a high frequency of RAM atrophy distal to the stomal aperture and patients with such atrophy had a lower risk of developing a PSH.
Literature
1.
Näsvall P, Dahlstrand U, Löwenmark T et al (2017) Quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma after rectal cancer surgery. Qual Life Res 26:55–64CrossRefPubMed
2.
Tivenius M, Näsvall P, Sandblom G (2019) Parastomal hernias causing symptoms or requiring surgical repair after colorectal cancer surgery—a national population-based cohort study. Int J Colorectal Dis 234:1267–1272CrossRef
3.
Moreno-Matias J, Serra-Aracil X, Darnell-Martin A et al (2009) The prevalence of parastomal hernia after formation of an end colostomy. A new clinico-radiological classification. Colon Dis 11:173–177CrossRef
4.
Cingi A, Cakir T, Sever A et al (2006) Enterostomy site hernias: a clinical and computerized tomographic evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1559–1563CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Nikberg M, Sverrisson I, Tsimogiannis K et al (2015) Prophylactic stoma mesh did not prevent parastomal hernias. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:1217–1222CrossRefPubMed
7.
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 33:118–121CrossRefPubMed
8.
Brandsma HT, Hansson BME, Aufenacker TJ et al (2017) Prophylactic mesh placement during formation of an end-colostomy reduces the rate of parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 265:663–669CrossRefPubMed
9.
Vierimaa M, Klintrup K, Biancari F et al (2015) Prospective, randomized study on the use of a prosthetic mesh for prevention of parastomal hernia of permanent colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 58:943–949CrossRefPubMed
10.
Antoniou SA, Agresta F, Garcia Alamino JM et al (2018) European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias. Hernia 22:183–198CrossRefPubMed
11.
Aslam M, Rubio-Perez I, Smart N et al (2019) A survey on practices for parastomal hernia prevention and repair among ESCP surgeons. Hernia 23:825–828CrossRefPubMed
12.
Odensten C, Strigård K, Rutegård J et al (2019) Use of prophylactic mesh when creating a colostomy does not prevent parastomal hernia: a randomized controlled trial—STOMAMESH. Ann Surg 269:427–431CrossRefPubMed
13.
Correa Marinez A, Bock D, Erestam S et al (2021) Methods of colostomy construction: no effect on parastomal hernia rate: results from Stoma-const—a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 273:640–647CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Prudhomme M, Fabbro-Peray P, Rullier E et al (2021) Meta-analysis and systematic review of the use of a prosthetic mesh for prevention of parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 274:20–28CrossRefPubMed
16.
Hardt J, Meerpohl JJ, Metzendorf M-I et al (2013) Lateral pararectal versus transrectal stoma placement for prevention of parastomal herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD009487
17.
Timmermans L, Deerenberg EB, Van Dijk SM et al (2013) Abdominal rectus muscle atrophy and midline shift after colostomy creation. Surgery 155:696–701CrossRef
18.
Jänes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson L et al (2004) Randomized clinical trial of the use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 91:280–282CrossRefPubMed
19.
Schroeder W, Martin K, Lorensen B (2006) The visualization toolkit–an object-oriented approach to 3D graphics, 4th edn. Kitware, Inc., Clifton Park, NY, USA
20.
21.
22.
Sahebally SM, Lim TZ, Azmir AA et al (2021) Prophylactic mesh placement at index permanent end colostomy creation to prevent parastomal hernia—an updated meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 36:2007–2016CrossRefPubMed
23.
Correa Marinez A, Bock D, Erestam S, Engström A, Kälebo P, Nielsen YW, Rosenberg J, Haglind E, Angenete E (2021) Methods of colostomy construction: no effect on parastomal hernia rate: results from stoma-const—a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 273(4):640–647CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Use of prophylactic stoma mesh is a risk factor for developing rectus abdominis muscle atrophy
Authors
S. Täckström
A. Chabok
K. Smedh
M. Nikberg
Publication date
01-04-2022
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Hernia / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02580-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Hernia 2/2022 Go to the issue

Original Article

Evaluation of information on the Internet regarding surgical mesh for hernia repair: analysis of websites found through three popular search engines

Comment

Could full thickness skin grafts in an onlay position be the new gold standard for incisional hernia repair? Author’s reply

Original Article

Long term outcome and elasticity of a polyester mesh used for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

Original Article

Feasibility of modified-TEP technique for large inguinoscrotal and large femoral hernia and its advantages

Original Article

Self-adhesive hydrogel meshes reduce tissue incorporation and mechanical behavior versus microgrips self-fixation: a preclinical study

Comment

When to use a prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: author's reply