Opin vísindi

Preventing Parastomal Hernia After Ileal Conduit by the Use of a Prophylactic Mesh : A Randomised Study

Preventing Parastomal Hernia After Ileal Conduit by the Use of a Prophylactic Mesh : A Randomised Study


Title: Preventing Parastomal Hernia After Ileal Conduit by the Use of a Prophylactic Mesh : A Randomised Study
Author: Liedberg, Fredrik
Kollberg, Petter
Allerbo, Marie
Baseckas, Gediminas
Brändstedt, Johan
Gudjónsson, Sigurður
Hagberg, Oskar
Håkansson, Ulf
Jerlström, Tomas
Löfgren, Annica
... 3 more authors Show all authors
Date: 2020-11
Language: English
Scope: 7
University/Institute: Landspitali - The National University Hospital of Iceland
Department: Faculty of Medicine
Other departments
Series: European Urology; 78(5)
ISSN: 0302-2838
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.033
Subject: Bladder cancer; Cystectomy; Ileal conduit; Parastomal hernia; Prophylactic mesh; Þvagblaðra; Krabbamein; Urology
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11815/3355

Show full item record

Citation:

Liedberg , F , Kollberg , P , Allerbo , M , Baseckas , G , Brändstedt , J , Gudjónsson , S , Hagberg , O , Håkansson , U , Jerlström , T , Löfgren , A , Patschan , O , Sörenby , A & Bläckberg , M 2020 , ' Preventing Parastomal Hernia After Ileal Conduit by the Use of a Prophylactic Mesh : A Randomised Study ' , European Urology , vol. 78 , no. 5 , pp. 757-763 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.033

Abstract:

Background: Parastomal hernia (PSH) after urinary diversion with ileal conduit is frequently a clinical problem. Objective: To investigate whether a prophylactic lightweight mesh in the sublay position can reduce the cumulative incidence of PSH after open cystectomy with ileal conduit. Design, setting, and participants: From 2012 to 2017, we randomised 242 patients 1:1 to conventional stoma construction (n = 124) or prophylactic mesh (n = 118) at three Swedish hospitals (ISRCTN 95093825). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was clinical PSH, and secondary endpoints were radiological PSH assessed in prone position with the stoma in the centre of a ring, parastomal bulging, and complications from the mesh. Results and limitations: Within 24 mo, 20/89 (23%) patients in the control arm and 10/92 (11%) in the intervention arm had developed a clinical PSH (p = 0.06) after a median follow-up of 3 yr, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.45 (confidence interval 0.24–0.86, p = 0.02) in the intervention arm. The proportions of radiological PSHs within 24 mo were 22/89 (25%) and 17/92 (19%) in the two study arms. During follow-up, five patients in the control arm and two in the intervention arm were operated for PSH. The median operating time was 50 min longer in patients receiving a mesh. No differences were noted in proportions of Clavien-Dindo complications at 90 d postoperatively or in complications related to the mesh during follow-up. Conclusions: Prophylactic implantation of a lightweight mesh in the sublay position decreases the risk of PSH when constructing an ileal conduit without increasing the risk of complications related to the mesh. The median surgical time is prolonged by mesh implantation. Patient summary: In this randomised report, we looked at the risk of parastomal hernia after cystectomy and urinary diversion with ileal conduit with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh. We conclude that such a prophylactic measure decreased the occurrence of parastomal hernias, with only a slight increase in operating time and no added risk of complications related to the mesh.

Description:

Funding Information: Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: This work was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2017/278), Lund Medical Faculty (ALF), Skåne University Hospital Research Funds, the Gyllenstierna Krapperup´s Foundation, Skåne County Council’s Research and Development Foundation (REGSKANE-821461), the Cancer Research Fund at Malmö General Hospital, Gösta Jönsson Research Foundation, the Foundation of Urological Research (Ove and Carin Carlsson Bladder Cancer donation), the Bergqvist Foundation, Stig and Ragna Gohrton Research Foundation, Thelma Zoega Research Foundation, and Hillevi Fries Research Foundation. The funding sources had no role in the study design, data analyses, interpretation of the results, or writing of the manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Authors

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)