End Colostomy With or Without Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia (GRECCAR 7): A Prospective, Randomized, Double Blinded, Multicentre Trial.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2021
01 12 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
18
11
2020
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
17
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate whether systematic mesh implantation upon primary colostomy creation was effective to prevent PSH. Previous randomized trials on prevention of PSH by mesh placement have shown contradictory results. This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in 18 hospitals in France on patients aged ≥18 receiving a first colostomy for an indication other than infection. Participants were randomized by blocks of random size, stratified by center in a 1:1 ratio to colostomy with or without a synthetic, lightweight monofilament mesh. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to patient group. The primary endpoint was clinically diagnosed PSH rate at 24 months of the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01380860. From November 2012 to October 2016, 200 patients were enrolled. Finally, 65 patients remained in the no mesh group (Group A) and 70 in the mesh group (Group B) at 24 months with the most common reason for drop-out being death (n = 41). At 24 months, PSH was clinically detected in 28 patients (28%) in Group A and 30 (31%) in Group B [P = 0.77, odds ratio = 1.15 95% confidence interval = (0.62;2.13)]. Stoma-related complications were reported in 32 Group A patients and 37 Group B patients, but no mesh infections. There were no deaths related to mesh insertion. We failed to show efficiency of a prophylactic mesh on PSH rate. Placement of a mesh in a retro-muscular position with a central incision to allow colon passage cannot be recommended to prevent PSH. Optimization of mesh location and reinforcement material should be performed.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate whether systematic mesh implantation upon primary colostomy creation was effective to prevent PSH.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Previous randomized trials on prevention of PSH by mesh placement have shown contradictory results.
METHODS
This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in 18 hospitals in France on patients aged ≥18 receiving a first colostomy for an indication other than infection. Participants were randomized by blocks of random size, stratified by center in a 1:1 ratio to colostomy with or without a synthetic, lightweight monofilament mesh. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to patient group. The primary endpoint was clinically diagnosed PSH rate at 24 months of the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01380860.
RESULTS
From November 2012 to October 2016, 200 patients were enrolled. Finally, 65 patients remained in the no mesh group (Group A) and 70 in the mesh group (Group B) at 24 months with the most common reason for drop-out being death (n = 41). At 24 months, PSH was clinically detected in 28 patients (28%) in Group A and 30 (31%) in Group B [P = 0.77, odds ratio = 1.15 95% confidence interval = (0.62;2.13)]. Stoma-related complications were reported in 32 Group A patients and 37 Group B patients, but no mesh infections. There were no deaths related to mesh insertion.
CONCLUSION
We failed to show efficiency of a prophylactic mesh on PSH rate. Placement of a mesh in a retro-muscular position with a central incision to allow colon passage cannot be recommended to prevent PSH. Optimization of mesh location and reinforcement material should be performed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33201089
pii: 00000658-202112000-00010
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004371
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01380860']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
928-934Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Hotouras A, Murphy J, Thaha M, et al. The persistent challenge of parastomal herniation: a review of the literature and future developments. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15:e202–e214.
Glasgow S, Dharmarajan S. Parastomal hernia: avoidance and treatment in the 21st century. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2016; 29:277–284.
Ripoche J, Basurko C, Fabbro-Perray P, et al. Parastomal hernia. A study of the French federation of ostomy patients. J Visc Surg 2011; 148:e435–e441.
López-Cano M, Lozoya-Trujillo R, Quiroga S, et al. Use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia 2012; 16:661–667.
Antoniou SA, Agresta F, Garcia Alamino JM, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias. Hernia 2018; 22:183–198.
Hansson BME, Slater NJ, van der Velden AS, et al. Surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg 2012; 255:685–695.
Jänes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up of a randomized study. World J Surg 2009; 33: 118-121-123.
Serra-Aracil X, Bombardo-Junca J, Moreno-Matias J, et al. Randomized, controlled, prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 2009; 249:583–587.
Fleshman JW, Beck DE, Hyman N, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study of non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix fascial sublay for parastomal reinforcement in patients undergoing surgery for permanent abdominal wall ostomies. Dis Colon Rectum 2014; 57:623–631.
Lambrecht JR, Larsen SG, Reiertsen O, et al. Prophylactic mesh at end-colostomy construction reduces parastomal hernia rate: a randomized trial. Colorectal Dis 2015; 17:O191–O197.
Vierimaa M, Klintrup K, Biancari F, et al. Prospective, randomized study on the use of a prosthetic mesh for prevention of parastomal hernia of permanent colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58:943–949.
Chapman SJ, Wood B, Drake TM, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60:107–115.
Cross AJ, Buchwald PL, Frizelle FA, et al. Meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2017; 104:179–186.
Jones HG, Rees M, Aboumarzouk OM, et al. Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 7:CD008905.
Patel SV, Zhang L, Chadi SA, et al. Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Tech Coloproctology 2017; 21:5–13.
Aslam MI, Rubio-Perez I, Smart NJ, et al. A survey on practices for parastomal hernia prevention and repair among ESCP surgeons. Hernia 2019; 23:825–828.
Odensten C, Strigård K, Rutegård J, et al. Use of prophylactic mesh when creating a colostomy does not prevent parastomal hernia: a randomized controlled trial-STOMAMESH. Ann Surg 2019; 269:427–431.
Brandsma H-T, Hansson BME, Aufenacker TJ, et al. Prophylactic mesh placement during formation of an end-colostomy reduces the rate of parastomal hernia: short-term results of the Dutch PREVENT-trial. Ann Surg 2017; 265:663–669.
Prudhomme M, Alline M, Chauvat J, et al. Primary prevention of peristomial hernias via parietal prostheses: a randomized, multicentric study (GRECCAR 7 trial). Dig Liver Dis Off J Ital Soc Gastroenterol Ital Assoc Study Liver 2016; 48:812–816.
Prieto L, Thorsen H, Juul K. Development and validation of a quality of life questionnaire for patients with colostomy or ileostomy. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005; 3:62.
López-Cano M, Brandsma H-T, Bury K, et al. Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia after end colostomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia 2017; 21:177–189.
Wang S, Wang W, Zhu B, et al. Efficacy of prophylactic mesh in end-colostomy construction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 2016; 40:2528–2536.
García-Alamino JM, López-Cano M, Kroese L, et al. Quality Assessment and risk of bias of systematic reviews of prophylactic mesh for parastomal hernia prevention using AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. World J Surg . doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05139-z [Epub ahead of print August 22, 2019].
Nikberg M, Sverrisson I, Tsimogiannis K, et al. Prophylactic stoma mesh did not prevent parastomal hernias. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30:1217–1222.
Tadeo G, Picazo J, Moreno C, et al. A comparison of two types of preperitoneal mesh prostheses in stoma surgery: application to an animal model. Hernia 2012; 16:669–675.
Cobb WS, Burns JM, Peindl RD, et al. Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 2006; 136:1–7.