Prophylactic Mesh Research Articles

Wound healing and hernia after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Onlay self-gripping polyester mesh reinforcement compared with small bite sutured closure.

Prophylactic mesh implantation following open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm is a debatable subject. To assess the efficacy of a self-gripping polyester mesh used in on-lay technique to prevent incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 495 patients who underwent aortic surgery between May 2017 and May 2021. Patients included in the study underwent open surgical repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with closure of the abdominal wall with either small bite suture technique or prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of incisional hernia during a two-year follow-up period. Secondary endpoints were mesh-related complications. Mesh implantation with the on-lay technique was successful in all cases. No patient in the mesh group developed an incisional hernia during the 24-month follow-up period. Two patients in the non-mesh group developed a symptomatic incisional hernia during the follow-up period at 6 months. Three cases of post-operative access site complications were observed in the mesh group. Application of a self-gripping polyester mesh using the on-lay technique demonstrates acceptable early-durability after open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, it appears to be associated with a number of post-operative access site complications.

Author response to: Comment on Prophylactic mesh augmentation after laparotomy for elective and emergency surgery: meta-analysis.

Author response to: Comment on Prophylactic mesh augmentation after laparotomy for elective and emergency surgery: meta-analysis.

Comment on Prophylactic mesh augmentation after laparotomy for elective and emergency surgery: meta-analysis.

Comment on Prophylactic mesh augmentation after laparotomy for elective and emergency surgery: meta-analysis.

Incisional Hernia: A Surgical Complication or Medical Disease?

Incisional hernia (IH) is a frequent complication following abdominal surgery. The development of IH could be more sophisticated than a simple anatomical failure of the abdominal wall. Reported IH incidence varies among studies. This review presented an overview of definitions, molecular basis, risk factors, incidence, clinical presentation, surgical techniques, postoperative care, cost, risk prediction tools, and proposed preventative measures. A literature search of PubMed was conducted to include high-quality studies on IH. The incidence of IH depends on the primary surgical pathology, incision site and extent, associated medical comorbidities, and risk factors. The review highlighted inherent and modifiable risk factors. The disorganisation of the extracellular matrix, defective fibroblast functions, and ratio variations of different collagen types are implicated in molecular mechanisms. Elective repair of IH alleviates symptoms, prevents complications, and improves the quality of life (QOL). Recent studies introduced risk prediction tools to implement preventative measures, including suture line reinforcement or prophylactic mesh application in high-risk groups. Elective repair improves QOL and prevents sinister outcomes associated with emergency IH repair. The watchful wait strategy should be reviewed, and options should be discussed thoroughly during patients' counselling. Risk stratification tools for predicting IH would help adopt prophylactic measures.

Incisional hernias: epidemiology, evidence and guidelines

From an epidemiological point of view, one third of the population in industrialized countries will undergo abdominal surgery during their lifetime. Depending on the degree of patient-related and procedure-related risks, the occurrence of incisional hernias is associated in arange of up to 30% at 2‑year follow-up and even up to 60% at 5years. In addition to influencing comorbidities, the type of surgical approach and closure technique are of critical importance. To present adescriptive evidence-based recommendation for abdominal wall closure and prophylactic mesh augmentation. Aconcise summary was prepared incorporating the current literature and existing guidelines. According to recent studies the recognized risk for the occurrence of incisional hernias in the presence of obesity and abdominal aortic diseases also applies to patients undergoing colorectal surgery and the presence of diastasis recti abdominis. Based on high-level published data, the short stitch technique for midline laparotomy in the elective setting has a high level of evidence to be astandard procedure. Patients with an increased risk profile should receive prophylactic mesh reinforcement, either onlay or sublay, in addition to the short stitch technique. In emergency laparotomy, the individual risk of infection with respect to the closure technique used must be included. The avoidance of incisional hernias is primarily achieved by the minimally invasive access for laparoscopy. For closure of the most commonly used midline approach, the short stitch technique and, in the case of existing risk factors, additionally mesh augmentation are recommended.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement vs. primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): long-term outcomes of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Incisional hernia occurs approximately in 40% of high-risk patients after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh placement has shown promising results, but long-term outcomes are needed. The present study aimed to assess the long-term incisional hernia rates of the previously conducted PRIMA trial with radiological follow-up. In the PRIMA trial, patients with increased risk of incisional hernia formation (AAA or BMI ≥27kg/m2) were randomised in a 1:2:2 ratio to primary suture, onlay mesh or sublay mesh closure in three different countries in eleven institutions. Incisional hernia during follow-up was diagnosed by any of: CT, ultrasound and physical examination, or during surgery. Assessors and patients were blinded until 2-year follow-up. Time-to-event analysis according to intention-to-treat principle was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models. Trial registration: NCT00761475 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Between 2009 and 2012, 480 patients were randomized: 107 primary suture, 188 onlay mesh and 185 sublay mesh. Five-year incisional hernia rates were 53.4% (95% CI: 40.4-64.8), 24.7% (95% CI: 12.7-38.8), 29.8% (95% CI: 17.9-42.6), respectively. Compared to primary suture, onlay mesh (HR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.248-0.614, p<0.001) and sublay mesh (HR: 0.485, 95% CI: 0.309-0.761, p=0.002) were associated with a significantly lower risk of incisional hernia development. Prophylactic mesh placement remained effective in reducing incisional hernia occurrence after midline laparotomy in high-risk patients during long-term follow-up. Hernia rates in the primary suture group were higher than previously anticipated. B. Braun.

Risk factors associated to incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aims to identify which risk factors are associated with the appearance of an incisional hernia in a stoma site after its closure. This in the sake of identifying which patients would benefit from a preventative intervention and thus start implementing a cost-effective protocol for prophylactic mesh placement in high-risk patients. A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane library, and ScienceDirect was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting incidence, risk factors, and follow-up time for appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure were included. A fixed-effects and random effects models were used to calculate odds ratios' estimates and standardized mean values with their respective grouped 95% confidence interval. This to evaluate the association between possible risk factors and the appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure. Seventeen studies totaling 2899 patients were included. Incidence proportion between included studies was of 16.76% (CI95% 12.82; 21.62). Out of the evaluated factors higher BMI (p = 0.0001), presence of parastomal hernia (p = 0.0023), colostomy (p = 0,001), and end stoma (p = 0.0405) were associated with the appearance of incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure, while malignant disease (p = 0.0084) and rectum anterior resection (p = 0.0011) were found to be protective factors. Prophylactic mesh placement should be considered as an effective preventative intervention in high-risk patients (obese patients, patients with parastomal hernia, colostomy, and end stoma patients) with the goal of reducing incisional hernia rates in stoma site after closure while remaining cost-effective.

How often is prophylactic parastomal mesh placement performed after rectal resection without sphincter preservation? An analysis of German nationwide hospital discharge data among 41,697 patients

PurposeThe European Hernia Society guidelines of parastomal hernias, published in 2017, strongly recommend prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon the construction of a permanent end colostomy to reduce the incidence of parastomal hernias. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the guidelines in Germany.MethodsThis is a retrospective multicentric analysis conducted in December 2022 at the University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel. Anonymous data on rectal resection without sphincter preservation in the period 2010–2020 were extracted from the German nationwide hospital discharge data set. Individuals with a hernia and < 18 years old were excluded. Another exclusion criterion was a performed colectomy or proctocolectomy with an ileoanal pouch and placement of an absorbable mesh. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of prophylactic parastomal mesh placement following rectal resection without sphincter preservation in Germany. Cases reporting both non-absorbable mesh placement and rectal resection without sphincter preservation were considered prophylactic mesh insertions.ResultsA total of 41,697 patients received a rectal resection without sphincter preservation and without non-absorbable mesh placement. Among these individuals, 27,089 were male and 14,608 were female. The rate of reoperations (3.1%) and the length of hospital stay (25.3 days ± 19.32) remained almost constant during these 10 years. The rate of prophylactic mesh placement was increasing from 0.2% (n = 8) in 2010 to 6.4% (n = 198) in 2020.ConclusionsCurrently, only the minority of patients who have undergone rectal resection without sphincter preservation receive prophylactic mesh insertion.

Effectiveness of placing prophylactic mesh with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: 1-year results

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of parastomal hernia prevention with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer after a 1-year follow-up at University Medical Center in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Materials and Methods Prospective study. Between November 2018 and July 2022, 43 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and were divided into 2 groups: study (n = 15) with prophylactic mesh placement with the Sugarbaker technique and control (n = 28). All patients were tracked for at least a year and had an abdominal computed tomography scan. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the rate of parastomal hernia after 1 year. To compare the rates of parastomal hernia in 2 groups, the log-rank test was used. Results This study included 43 patients, the male-to-female ratio was approximately equal to 1:1, the median age was 62 years, the youngest age was 40 years, and the oldest age was 92 years. Rectal cancer stage III was found in 41.8% of people. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was used in 27.9% of cases. The average duration of operation was 184 minutes. The average time for mesh placement was 15 minutes. The overall complication rate was 16.4%. There were no issues with mesh placement. At 1 year, the control group had a higher cumulative rate of parastomal hernia than the study group (35.7% vs 0%; log-rank test, 6.4; P = 0.01). Conclusions Prophylactic mesh placement with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer is safe, does not increase complications, and reduces the cumulative rate of a parastomal hernia at 1 year in patients who have undergone prophylactic mesh placement.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation.

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.

PHaLIR: prevent hernia after loop ileostomy reversal—a study protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter study

BackgroundRectal cancer is a common cancer worldwide. Surgery for rectal cancer with low anterior resection often includes the formation of a temporary protective loop ileostomy. The temporary ostomy is later reversed in a separate operation.One complication following stoma closure is the development of a hernia at the former stoma site, and this has been reported in 7–15% of patients. The best method to avoid hernia after stoma closure is unclear. The most common closure is by suturing only, but different forms of mesh have been tried. Biological mesh has in a randomized trial halved hernia incidence after stoma reversal. Biosynthetic mesh and retromuscular mesh are currently being evaluated in ongoing studies.MethodsThe present multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, controlled study will compare standard suture closure of the abdominal wall in loop ileostomy reversal with retromuscular synthetic mesh at the stoma site. The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review board in Stockholm.Patients aged 18–90 years, operated on with low anterior resection and a protective loop ileostomy for rectal cancer and planned for ileostomy reversal, will be considered for inclusion in the study. Randomization will be 1:1 on the operation day with concealed envelopes. The estimated sample size is intended to evaluate the superiority of the experimental arm and to detect a reduction of hernia occurrence from 12 to 3%. The operation method is blinded to the patients and in the chart and for the observer at the 30-day follow-up. The main outcome is hernia occurrence at the stoma site within 3 years postoperatively, diagnosed through CT with strain. Secondary outcomes are operation time, length of hospital stay, pain, and 30-day complications.DiscussionThis double-blinded randomized controlled superiority study will compare retromuscular synthetic mesh during the closure of loop ileostomy to standard care. If this study can show a lower frequency of hernia with the use of prophylactic mesh, it may lead to new surgical guidelines during stoma closure.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720262. Registered on October 25, 2018.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project.

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

SP9.6 Effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh closure in emergency Gastrointestinal surgery

Abstract Background Wound complications are frequent in emergency Gastro-Intestinal (GI) surgery increasing morbidity and cost of care. Although laparotomy closure using a prophylactic mesh has been proven to limit Incisional Hernia (IH) occurrence, the literature lacked a high-quality assessment in the setting of emergency GI laparotomy. This review offers an up-to-date evaluation of the prophylactic mesh closure in these conditions. Methods A systematic review was executed via literature database: PubMed, Cochrane database, Science Direct and Google Scholar. Studies were examined for eligibility and included if they managed to compare prophylactic mesh closure to the conventional laparotomy closure in GI emergency surgeries. Both early postoperative fascial dehiscence and late incisional hernia were examined as primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes incorporate Surgical Site Infection (SSI), seroma/hematoma formation, complications of Clavien-Dindo score ≥3, operative time, and hospital stay. Results 2 Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)(1, 2) and 2 comparative studies,(3, 4) which studied 562 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The hernia rate was significantly reduced in the mesh group (Odds Ratio 0.14 [0.05, 0.36], P value &amp;lt; 0.0001), while there was no statistically significant difference in fascial dehiscence between the studied groups (Odds Ratio 0.49 [0.01, 47.02], P value= 0.76). In addition, there was no significant outcome favouring one group over the other in terms of SSI and rest of the screened endpoints. Conclusion Despite the promising reduction in IH rate, a solid outcome was not obtained due to the limited number of relevant studies, paucity of RCTs and diversity in surgical techniques and mesh positions. A wider-scale RCTs may offer reliable results.

Prevention of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundIncisional hernia is a common complication after kidney transplantation with an incidence of 1.6–18%. Concerning non-transplant patients, a recently published meta-analysis describes a reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia of up to 85% due to prophylactic mesh replacement in elective, midline laparotomy. The aim of our study is to show a reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation with minimal risk for complication.Methods/designThis is a blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing time to incisional hernia over a period of 24 months between patients undergoing kidney transplantation and standardized abdominal closure with or without prophylactic placement of ProGrip™ (Medtronic, Fridley, MN, USA) mesh in an onlay position. As we believe that the mesh intervention is superior to the standard procedure in reducing the incidence of hernia, this is a superiority trial.DiscussionThe high risk for developing incisional hernia following kidney transplantation might be reduced by prophylactic mesh placement. ProGrip™ mesh features polylactic acid (PLA) microgrips that provide immediate, strong and uniform fixation. The use of this mesh combines the effectiveness demonstrated by the macropore propylene meshes in the treatment of incisional hernias, a high simplicity of use provided by its capacity for self-fixation that does not increase significantly surgery time, and safety.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04794582. Registered on 08 March 2021. Protocol version 2.0. (02–18-2021).

EDITORIAL COMMENT

Placement of prophylactic mesh at the time of ileal conduit urinary diversion is a controversial topic. On one hand, prophylactic parastomal hernia mesh has been found to decrease the rate of clinically detected parastomal hernia with no mesh complications in randomized studies 1 Liedberg F. Kollberg P. Allerbo M. et al. Preventing parastomal hernia after ileal conduit by the use of a prophylactic mesh: a randomised study. Eur Urol. 2020; 78: 757-763 Google Scholar and, as the current authors find, the approach has been found to be cost effective. 2 Saha S. Gerdtham U. Bläckberg M. Kollberg P. Liedberg F. Cost effectiveness of the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia after urinary diversion with an ileal conduit. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022; 40: 9-15 Google Scholar , 3 Kanabolo D.P.S. Park S. Prophylactic mesh placement with ileal conduit: a cost effectiveness analysis. Urology. 2023; (S0090-4295(23)00368-0)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.041 Google Scholar On the other hand, placement of prophylactic parastomal hernia mesh is not widely adopted in clinical practice. One reason for lack of adoption may be because the absolute rate of symptomatic parastomal hernia repairs that require surgical intervention is low because interventions are limited to cases with complications from the parastomal hernia such as bowel or conduit obstruction or skin breakdown from pouching challenges. Consequently, it is unclear how prophylactic mesh placement impacts the span of patient experience with parastomal hernia, which may range from asymptomatic to life threatening. Currently, no urologic studies incorporate patient-reported outcome measures regarding stoma satisfaction or impact on daily functioning, though efforts are underway to address this question in colorectal collaborative groups. 4 Blackwell S. Pinkney T. Quality of life and parastomal hernia repair: the PROPHER study. Hernia. 2020; 24: 429-430 Google Scholar As such, a key question remains unanswered in the urologic literature: Does prophylactic parastomal hernia mesh placement improve long-term patient quality of life and decrease the need for parastomal hernia repair?

Incisional Hernias after Vascular Surgery for Aortoiliac Aneurysm and Aortoiliac Occlusive Arterial Disease: Has Prophylactic Mesh Changed This Scenario?

Incisional hernia (IH) is an important surgical complication that has several ways of prevention, including modifications in the surgical technique of the initial procedure. Its incidence can reach 69% in high-risk patients and long-term follow-up. Of the risky procedures, open abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy is the one with the highest risk. Ways to reduce this morbid complication were suggested, and prophylactic mesh rises as an important tool to prevent recurrence. A retrospective cohort study review of medical records of patients undergoing vascular surgery for abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm (AAA) or vascular bypass surgery due to aortoiliac occlusive disease. We identified 193 patients treated between 2010 and 2020. We further performed a one-to-nine matching analysis between the use of prophylactic mesh and control groups, based on estimated propensity scores for each patient. Prophylactic mesh group had a 18% lower risk of IH, compared with the control group (relative risk: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74-0.93). The difference in IH rates between the groups compared was 2.6% (95% CI: -19.8 to 25.5). From the perspective of the number needed to treat, it would be necessary to use prophylactic mesh in 39 (95% CI: 35-44) patients to avoid one IH in this population. Use of prophylactic mesh in the repair of AAA significantly reduces the incidence of IH in nearly one in five cases. Our data suggest that there is benefit in the use of prophylactic mesh in open aneurysmectomy surgery regarding postoperative IH development.

Comparative Study between Constructing Permanent End Colostomy with Prophylactic Mesh VS Constructing Colostomy without Prophylactic Mesh for the Incidence of Parastomal Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparative Study between Constructing Permanent End Colostomy with Prophylactic Mesh VS Constructing Colostomy without Prophylactic Mesh for the Incidence of Parastomal Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical value of mesh prophylaxis for parastomal hernia based on evidence-based medicine

The incidence of parastomal hernia is substantially high, significantly affecting the quality of life of patients with stoma. How to effectively solve the problem of parastomal hernia is a long-term focus of hernia and abdominal wall surgery and colorectal surgery. The European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia published in 2018 has recommended the use of a prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia for the first time. In the following 5 years, more randomized controlled trials of multi-center, large-sample, double-blind, long-term follow-up have been published, and no significant effect of mesh prophylaxis has been observed on the incidence of parastomal hernia. However, whether mesh could decrease surgical intervention by limiting the symptoms of parastomal hernias would become a potential value of prophylaxis, which requires further research to elucidate.

P-041 3-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF USE OF ONLAY PROPHYLACTIC MESH IN MIDLINE LAPAROTOMY FOR GASTRIC CANCER

Abstract Background Incisional hernias are a frequent complication of abdominal wall incisions, ranging from 12.8% to 69% in long-time series. Recent literature supports the use of prophylactic mesh placement to avoid long-term incisional hernias. Gastric surgery in our center is performed via midline laparotomy and prophylactic mesh placement is carried out as a usual practice. The objective of our study is to evaluate long-term results of prophylactic mesh in midline laparotomies for gastric cancer. Methods Observational retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing gastric cancer sugery via midline incision with use of a polypropliene autoadhesive prophylactic mesh, between the years 2019–2021. Outcome measures included demographics, comorbidities, wound complications, reinterventions, neoplastic recurrences and incisional hernias (diagnosed by CT scan). Results A cohort of 55 patients (80% male). Mean age 68.1 years old (41–86), BMI 25,75 kg/m2 (18.73–33). All patients operated for gastric cancer, abdominal wall closure with small bite technique (monofilament absorbable 2/0 suture) and autoadhesive onlay mesh. 72.7% distal subtotal gastrectomies. 89% elective surgery. Mean albumin in preoperative analytic 40.5 g/L. Postoperative complications: 72% Clavien-Dindo grade II, mean CCI 29 (including 4 reinterventions and 1 exitus). Mean follow-up 24.9 months: 8 (14.5%) neoplastic recurrences, 4 (7.3%) exitus for cancer progression and 3 (5.4%) incisional hernias diagnosed by CT Scan (none of them reoperated). No meshes have been removed. In a comparative study no risk factors for incisional hernia have been found. Conclusions In our setting, the use of polypropylene autoadhesive prophylactic meshes in midline incision for gastric cancer is safe and durable.

OC-101 PLACEMENT OF INTRAPERITONEAL PREFORMED PROPHYLACTIC MESH IN END COLOSTOMIES TO REDUCE PARASTOMAL HERNIA AND COMPARING WITH CONTROL GROUP. TECHNIQUE AND ANALYSIS OF OUR RESULTS

Abstract Objective To study the effect of the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) through the prophylactic placement of a preformed intraperitoneal mesh in patients who must undergo a definitive colostomy. The comparison is made with a homogeneous control group that did not receive prophylactic mesh. Material and methods Unicentric, prospective, non-randomized and observational study was performed. Patients were divided in two groups: 30 patients with colorectal neoplastic disease, collected consecutively,who underwent an end colostomy with a profilactic preformed intraperitoneal mesh (Dynamesh IPST®) versus a homogeneous control group (30 patients) who also underwent a definitive end colostomy without prophylactic mesh placement. Primary objective is to determine incidence of PSH in both groups. Secondary objectives were mesh related complications. Demographic variables and early postoperative complications, clinical and radiological follow-up (18–24 months) and presence of clinical and/or radiological PSH were registered. The surgical technique performed in our center is described. Results In the Mesh group there were 0 mesh-related complications at 30 days. In the long term, only 6.6% PSH were recorded in mesh group, while in the control group, a 63% of PSH were observed. Conclusions The incidence of PSH is significantly reduced using prophylactic mesh. Our study corroborates what has already been stated in the literature and does not associate complications. The prophylactic placement of the IPST intraperitoneal mesh in patients who require a definitive end colostomy is a technique that is easy to use in the laparoscopic approach, safe, fast, and easily reproducible, without related complications.