Prophylactic Mesh Placement During Formation of an End-colostomy: Long-term Randomized Controlled Trial on Effectiveness and Safety.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if prophylactic mesh placement is an effective, safe, and cost-effective procedure to prevent parastomal hernia (PSH) formation in the long term. BACKGROUND: A PSH is the most frequent complication after stoma formation. Prophylactic placement of a mesh has been suggested to prevent PSH, but long-term evidence to support this approach is scarce. METHODS: In this multicentre superiority trial patients undergoing the formation of a permanent colostomy were randomly assigned to either retromuscular polypropylene mesh reinforcement or conventional colostomy formation. Primary endpoint was the incidence of a PSH after 5 years. Secondary endpoints were morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were randomly assigned to the mesh group (n = 72) or nonmesh group (n = 78). For the long-term follow-up, 113 patients were analyzed, and 37 patients were lost to follow-up. After a median follow-up of 60 months (interquartile range: 48.6-64.4), 49 patients developed a PSH, 20 (27.8%) in the mesh group and 29 (37.2%) in the nonmesh group ( P = 0.22; RD: -9.4%; 95% CI: -24, 5.5). The cost related to the meshing strategy was € 2.239 lower than the nonmesh strategy (95% CI: 491.18, 3985.49), and quality-adjusted life years did not differ significantly between groups ( P = 0.959; 95% CI: -0.066, 0.070). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mesh placement during the formation of an end-colostomy is a safe procedure but does not reduce the incidence of PSH after 5 years of follow-up. It does, however, delay the onset of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, and seems to be cost-effective.

Prophylactic Mesh Placement During Formation of an End-colostomy Reduces the Rate of Parastomal Hernia: Short-term Results of the Dutch PREVENT-trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of parastomal hernias (PSHs) after end-colostomy formation using a polypropylene mesh in a randomized controlled trial versus conventional colostomy formation. BACKGROUND: A PSH is the most frequent complication after stoma formation. Symptoms may range from mild abdominal pain to life-threatening obstruction and strangulation. The treatment of a PSH is notoriously difficult and recurrences up to 20% have been reported despite the use of mesh. This has moved surgical focus toward prevention. METHODS: Augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retro-muscular lightweight polypropylene mesh was compared with the traditional formation of a colostomy. In total, 150 patients (1:1 ratio) were included. The incidence of a PSH, morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness was measured after 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups regarding demographics and predisposing factors for PSH. Three out of 67 patients (4.5%) in the mesh group and 16 out of 66 patients (24.2%) in the nonmesh group developed a PSH (P = 0.0011). No statistically significant difference was found in infections, concomitant hernias, SF-36 questionnaire, Von Korff pain score, and cost-effectiveness between both study groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular lightweight polypropylene mesh at the ostomy site significantly reduces the incidence of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

Spinal or local anesthesia in lichtenstein hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: With established protocols lacking, the choice of anesthetic technique remains arbitrary in inguinal hernia repair. Well-designed studies in this subject are important because of the gap or discrepancy between available scientific evidence and clinical practice. METHODS: Between August 2004 and June 2006, a multicenter prospective clinical trial was performed in which 100 patients with unilateral primary inguinal hernia were randomized to spinal or local anesthesia. Clinical examination took place within 2 weeks postoperatively and at 3 months in the outpatient clinic. RESULTS: Analysis of postoperative visual analogue scale scores showed that patients operated under local anesthesia had significant less pain shortly after surgery (P = 0.021). Significantly more urinary retention (P < 0.001) and more overnight admissions (P = 0.004) occurred after spinal anesthesia. Total operating time is significantly shorter in the local anesthesia group (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups with respect to the activities of daily life and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that local anesthesia is superior to spinal anesthesia in inguinal hernia repair. Local anesthesia in primary, inguinal hernia repairs should be the method of choice.