Prophylactic onlay mesh placement to prevent parastomal hernia in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection: A prospective comparative study a year follow-up, a single-center experience | ||||
| The Egyptian Journal of Surgery | ||||
| Volume 43, Issue 4, October 2024, Page 1471-1481 PDF (525.01 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/EJSUR.2024.293910.1092 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Moustafa M. Emad  ; Karim Fahmy; Kareem Ahmed Kamel
| ||||
| Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Introduction: The rate of parastomal hernia may be decreased by implanting mesh at the time of stoma creation. The evidence was previously restricted to a small number of randomized controlled trials. Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine if simultaneous prophylactic mesh applied during the abdominoperineal resection (APR) has a preventative effect on parastomal hernia (PSH) incidence following APR of rectal cancer. Patients and Methods: 53 surgically resected rectal cancer patients were included in this study, and were divided into two groups: experimental group (receiving mesh, n=22) and control group (no mesh, n=31). Patients in the control group underwent a conventional end colostomy, but those in the experimental group received a polypropylene mesh put onlay in the shape of a keyhole around the colon. 24 months was the median follow-up period. Cox regression analysis was used to examine the differences in risk functions. The significance of differences across groups was examined using the Pearson Chi and Fisher’s exact tests. SPSS version 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for all analyses, and a statistically significant value of 0.05 was used. Results: The postoperative incidence rate of PSH was significantly lower in the experimental (13.6%) group than in the control group (45.2%) at 24 months follow-up, (P=0.015). The PSH operative time in the experimental group was significantly longer compared with the control group (265.95 min vs. 256.74 min; P=0.044). There is no significant difference between both groups regarding stoma prolapse, stenosis and necrosis. Conclusion: Mesh prophylaxis appears secure and effective in preventing parastomal hernia at the time of stoma creation in APR patients. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Abdominoperineal resection APR; parastomal hernia PSH; rectal cancer | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 91 PDF Download: 102 |
||||
