Prophylactic Mesh Research Articles

Prophylactic Effect of Simultaneous Placement of Mesh on Incidence of Parastomal Hernia After Miles' Surgical Resection of Colorectal Cancer: AProspective Study.

To assess the prophylactic effect of simultaneous placement of mesh and the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) after abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer. This study included real-world data of 56 surgically resected patients with colorectal cancer who were consecutively assigned to two groups: control (no mesh, n=32) and experimental (received mesh, n=24). An artificial patch was placed under the tunica vaginalis of rectus abdominis for patients in the experimental group, whereas those in the control group received routine sigmoidostomy. The median follow-up time was >20mo. The difference in hazards function was analyzed by cox regression analysis. The Kaplan-Meir analysis was used to determine the survival curves. A P value of <0.05 was considered as significant. The postoperative incidence rate of PSH was lower in the experimental (41.7%) group than in the control group (71.9%; P=0.045). The PSH postoperative time in the experimental group was significantly delayed compared to the control group (48mo versus 10mo; P<0.001). The risk of progression from H1 to H2 was less in the experimental group compared to the control group (49.28% versus 60.86%; P=0.14). Prophylactic mesh placement significantly prolonged postoperative time for the recurrence of PSH. The incidence of recurrence of H2 (severe PSH) requiring secondary surgical repair was also reduced.

Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies.

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative. Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised. These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions.

Effectiveness of placing prophylactic mesh with the Sugarbaker technique via laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

Abstract Introduction: 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 one-year follow-up at University Medical Center in Ho Chi Minh City. Patients and methods: Intervention study. Between 11/2018 and 7/2022, 43 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and were divided into two groups: intervention (n = 15) with prophylactic mesh placement using 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 one year. To compare the rates of parastomal hernia in two groups, the logrank 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; the youngest age was 40; and the oldest age was 92. 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 one year, the control group had a higher cumulative rate of parastomal hernia than the intervention group (35.7% versus 0%, logrank 6.4, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Prophylactic mesh placement using the Sugarbaker technique during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cacner 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. Keywords: Prophylactic mesh placement, Sugarbaker technique, Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias by Prophylactic Mesh-augmented Reinforcement of Midline Laparotomies for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment: Five-year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

The incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) after open repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is high. Several randomized controlled trials have reported favorable results with the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent IHs, without increasing complications. In this analysis, we report on the results of the 60-month follow-up of the PRIMAAT trial. In a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized design, patients were randomized between prophylactic retrorectus mesh reinforcement (mesh group), and primary closure of their midline laparotomy after open AAA repair (no-mesh group). This article reports on the results of clinical follow-up after 60 months. If performed, ultrasonography or computed tomography were used for the diagnosis of IHs. Of the 120 randomized patients, 114 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Thirty-three patients in the no-mesh group (33/58-56.9%) and 34 patients in the mesh group (34/56-60.7%) were evaluated after 5 years. In each treatment arm, 10 patients died between the 24-month and 60-month follow-up. The cumulative incidence of IHs in the no-mesh group was 32.9% after 24 months and 49.2% after 60 months. No IHs were diagnosed in the mesh group. In the no-mesh group, 21.7% (5/23) underwent reoperation within 5 years due to an IH. Prophylactic retrorectus mesh reinforcement after midline laparotomy for the treatment of AAAs safely and effectively decreases the rate of IHs. The cumulative incidence of IHs after open AAA repair, when no mesh is used, continues to increase during the first 5 years after surgery, which leads to a substantial rate of hernia repairs.

Prophylactic mesh placement in emergency midline laparotomy for intestinal perforation peritonitis: An appeal for caution.

Prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) is increasingly being used to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia after routine and emergency midline laparotomy (EML). However, such studies are not available for EMLs done solely for intestinal perforation. Patients who underwent non-absorbable PMP during EML for intestinal perforation (Group A, 15 patients) were compared with those who had a conventional abdominal wall closure (Group B, 20 patients). The incidence of wound dehiscence was significantly higher in Group A, while surgical site infection (SSI), and incisional hernia were similar in both groups. Mesh explantation was needed in half the cases. A prophylactically placed non-absorbable mesh in patients undergoing EML for intestinal perforation is associated with significantly higher rates of wound dehiscence and of mesh explantation and therefore, routine use of such a mesh appears not to be justified.

A Biomechanical Analysis of Prophylactic Mesh Reinforced Porcine Laparotomy Incisions

IntroductionResearch indicates that prophylactic mesh may help prevent incisional hernia after laparotomy, but best practice patterns in these situations are still evolving. Here, we compare the failure loads (FLs) and biomechanical stiffness (BMS) of 35 porcine abdominal wall laparotomy incisions reinforced with meshes of various widths and fixation distances using biomechanical testing. MethodsIn each specimen, a 10-cm incision was made and closed using continuous 1-0 Maxon suture. Specimens were randomized to mesh width (none, 2.5 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, 6 cm, 8 cm) and tack separation (1.5 cm, 2 cm apart) and the meshes secured in an onlay fashion. Cyclic loads oscillating from 15 N to 140 N were applied to simulate abdominal wall stress, and the specimens subsequently loaded to failure. FLs (N) and BMS (N/mm) were comparatively analyzed. ResultsAll specimens failed via suture pull-through. FLs and BMS were lowest in specimens with suture-only (421.43 N; 11.69 N/mm). FLs and BMS were significantly higher in 4-cm mesh specimens (567.51 N) than those with suture, 2.5-cm, and 3.0-cm mesh (all P < 0.05). FLs in specimens with a greater number of tacks were consistently higher in meshes of similar sizes, although these did not reach significance. ConclusionsA 4-cm mesh reenforcement was superior to suture-only and smaller meshes at preserving strength in laparotomy closure in a porcine model but larger meshes (6 cm, 8 cm) did not provide an additional benefit. Meshes with more fixation points may be advantageous, but additional data are needed to make definitive conclusions.

Protocol for EHS Rapid Guideline: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention.

Background: Parastomal hernia presents frequently after construction of a permanent end colostomy. Previous guidelines recommend using a prophylactic mesh for hernia prevention. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published hereafter demonstrate conflicting outcomes. Methods and Analysis: A rapid guideline will be developed and reported in accordance with GRADE, GIN and AGREE-S standards. The steering group will consist of general and colorectal surgeons, members of the EHS Scientific Advisory Board with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, and a certified guideline methodologist. The guideline panel will consist of three general surgeons, three colorectal surgeons, two stoma care nurses, and two patient representatives. A single question will address the safety and efficacy of the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with a permanent end colostomy, and sensitivity analyses will focus on the use of non-absorbable versus absorbable meshes, and on different anatomical spaces for mesh placement. A systematic review will be conducted and evidence synthesis will be performed by statisticians independently. The results of evidence synthesis will be summarized in summary of findings tables. Recommendation(s) will be finalized through Delphi process of the guideline panel within an evidence-to-decision framework. Ethics and Dissemination: The funding body will not be involved in the development of this guideline. Conflicts of interest, if any, will be addressed by re-assigning functions or replacing participants with direct conflicts, according to Guidelines International Network recommendations.

Reducing Complications and Expanding Use of Robotic Rectus Abdominis Muscle Harvest for Pelvic Reconstruction.

The rectus abdominis flap has long been a workhorse in perineal reconstruction. Although traditionally approached though an external incision, the morbid nature of the incision and subsequent violation of the anterior rectus sheath has encouraged innovation of minimally invasive approaches for harvest. In this study, we present our experience, evolution, and comparative outcomes of robotic rectus abdominis muscle harvest. A retrospective review of perineal reconstruction was performed for a 6-year period (2014 to 2019). Robotic rectus abdominis muscle flaps were compared to nonrobotic techniques performed during this time. Descriptive statistics and complication profiles were computed. The details of our surgical technique are also described. Thirty-six patients underwent perineal reconstruction. Sixteen were performed using the robotic rectus abdominis muscle and 20 with traditional repairs (12 vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps and eight gracilis flaps). Demographic profiles were similar between cohorts, including age, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, neoadjuvant radiation therapy, and need for vaginal wall repair. Six robotic patients underwent abdominal wall reinforcement with biological mesh. Length of stay, surgical times, and incidence of major complications were similar between cohorts with a trend toward increased minor complications in traditional reconstructions (55 percent versus 31 percent; p = 0.15). Robotic rectus abdominis muscle harvest is a powerful tool that continues to evolve the potential to mitigate common morbidities and complications of traditional repair and further enhance cosmetic outcomes. This study suggests that greater flexibility for reconstruction can be afforded with harvest of the posterior rectus sheath and complications avoided with prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Therapeutic, III.

Cost Effectiveness of the Use of Prophylactic Mesh To Prevent Parastomal Hernia After Urinary Diversion with an Ileal Conduit

BackgroundProphylactic lightweight mesh in the sublay position reduced the cumulative incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) after cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion in a randomised controlled trial. ObjectiveTo investigate whether the use of prophylactic mesh is cost-effective in comparison to no mesh from the health care provider perspective. Design, setting, and participantsData on health care resource utilisation (outpatient care and inpatient care) were obtained for 159 patients included in a randomised trial. The patients underwent surgery at Skåne University Hospital or Helsingborg County Hospital (80 with a prophylactic mesh and 79 without) and information about care was ascertained from the regional health care register. The patients underwent surgery between 2012 and 2017 and were followed until death or August 2020. Outcome measurements and statistical analysesThe primary outcome measure was the clinical incidence of PSH. Costs are reported in Euro in 2020 prices (€1 = 10.486 Swedish Krona) and presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap procedure. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to capture the uncertainty for ICERs. Results and limitationsThe mean difference in total costs between the mesh and no-mesh groups was −€2047 (95% CI −€16 441 to €12 348). Seventeen patients (21.5%) in the no-mesh group developed clinical PSH versus six patients (7.5%) in the mesh group (p = 0.001). This indicates that mesh is less costly and more effective compared to no mesh from the health care provider perspective. Subgroup analyses showed that results were more advantageous for women and for patients younger than 71 yr and with less comorbidity than for their counterparts. ConclusionsThe use of prophylactic mesh during ileal conduit reconstruction to prevent PSH is cost-effective from the health care provider perspective. Patient summaryIn patients having their bladder surgically removed, a mesh implant can be inserted when a portion of the intestine is used to create an opening to drain urine from the body. Our results show that mesh use to prevent development of a hernia at the opening where urine exits the body is cost-effective from the perspective of health care providers.

Use of prophylactic stoma mesh is a risk factor for developing rectus abdominis muscle atrophy

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the possible risk factors for developing a parastomal hernia (PSH) in a cohort of rectal cancer patients with and without the application of a retro-muscular prophylactic mesh. The evaluated risk factors included the position of the stoma in the rectus abdominis muscle (RAM), RAM atrophy and shift of abdominal wall midline structures.MethodsRectal cancer patients treated with an abdominoperineal excision or Hartmann’s procedure between 2002 and 2015 at Västmanland Hospital, Sweden was included. Postoperative CT examinations were retrospectively reviewed regarding the presence of PSH and RAM atrophy and for measurements such as position of the stoma in the RAM.Results116 patients were included, with a median age of 71 years. 70 patients received a prophylactic stoma mesh. 55 patients (47%) had a parastomal hernia at three-year follow-up. Rectus abdominis muscle atrophy was significantly higher in the mesh group compared with the non-mesh group (37% vs 2%; P = 0.04). RAM atrophy was a significant independent protective factor for developing a PSH (P = 0.007; OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03–0.55).ConclusionPlacement of a prophylactic retro-muscular stoma mesh resulted in a high frequency of RAM atrophy distal to the stomal aperture and patients with such atrophy had a lower risk of developing a PSH.

Parastomal hernias after cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: surgical treatment and the use of prophylactic mesh: a systematic review

BackgroundParastomal hernia after ileal conduit urinary diversion is an underestimated and undertreated clinical entity, which heavily impairs patients’ quality of life due to symptoms of pain, leakage, application or skin problems. As for all gastrointestinal stomata the best surgical repair technique has yet to be determined. Thereby, surgery for ileal conduit parastomal hernias poses some specific perioperative challenges. This review aims to give an overview of current evidence on the surgical treatment of parastomal hernia after cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion, and on the use of prophylactic mesh at index surgery in its prevention.MethodsA systematic review was performed according to PRISMA-guidelines. The electronic databases Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched. Studies were included if they presented postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgical treatment of parastomal hernia at the ileal conduit site, irrespective of the technique used. A search was performed to identify additional studies on prophylactic mesh in the prevention of ileal conduit parastomal hernia, that were not identified by the initial search.ResultsEight retrospective case-series were included for analysis, reporting different surgical techniques. If reported, highest complication rate was 45%. Recurrence rates varied highly, ranging from 0 to 80%. Notably, lower recurrence rates were reported in studies with shorter follow-up. Overall, available data suggest significant morbidity after the surgical treatment of ileal conduit parastomal hernias. Data from five conference abstracts on the matter were retrieved, and systematically reported. Regarding prophylactic mesh in the prevention of ileal conduit parastomal hernia, 5 communications were identified. All of them used keyhole mesh in a retromuscular position, and reported on favorable results in the mesh group without an increase in mesh-related complications.ConclusionData on the surgical treatment of ileal conduit parastomal hernias and the use of prophylactic mesh in its prevention is scarce. Given the specific perioperative challenges and the paucity of reported results, more high-quality evidence is needed to determine the optimal treatment of this specific surgical problem. Initial results on the use of prophylactic mesh in the prevention of ileal conduit parastomal hernias seem promising.

Closure of Iterative Laparotomy in Patients With Previous Mesh Reinforcement a Cohorts' Study. Short-Term Results.

Purpose: Due to extension of prophylactic mesh indications use will become more common to find patients receiving an iterative laparotomy (IL) over a previous reinforced abdominal wall. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes after IL in patients with previous mesh reinforcement. Methods: This study was a prospective secondary analysis of midline laparotomy closure performed from July 2017 to July 2018 registered in PHACPA study (NCT02658955). IL were included and surgery characteristics and outcomes analyzed. We compared two groups: with (PreM) or without previous prophylactic onlay mesh reinforcement (PreS) Subgroups' analysis, risk factors for complications and survival free hernia analysis were performed. Results: 121 IL were analyzed. Only obesity was associated with higher SSO (OR 2.6; CI 95% 1.02-6.90; p = 0.04) There were 15 incisional hernias (IH) (14.4%). Group with previous mesh reinforcement (pre M) had a higher statistically significative incidence of IH (OR = 1.21; CI 95% 1.05-1.39; p = 0.015). Use of slowly absorbable suture (OR = 0.74; CI 95% 0.60-0.91; p = 0.001), USP 2/0 suture (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; p = 0.033), and small bites technique (OR = 0.81; CI 95% 0.72-0.90; p = 0.011) were associated with less IH. Conclusion: IL has a high percentage of complications and IH. In case of IL without previous reinforcement, a mesh can help to reduce IH. Our data cannot clearly support any technique to close an IL with previous mesh.

Report from 'ESCP 2021 Virtual': the 16th Scientific and Annual Conference of the European Society of Coloproctology, 22-24 September 2021.

Report from 'ESCP 2021 Virtual': the 16th Scientific and Annual Conference of the European Society of Coloproctology, 22-24 September 2021.

Efficacy and safety of mesh closure in preventing wound failure following emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate comparative outcomes of emergency laparotomy closure with and without prophylactic mesh. A systematic review was performed via literature databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Studies were examined for eligibility and included if they compared prophylactic mesh closure to the conventional laparotomy closure following emergency abdominal surgery. Both acute wound failure and incisional hernia (IH) occurence were our primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI), seroma/hematoma formation, Clavien-Dindo complications (score ≥ 3), total operative time, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four comparative studies with a total of 817 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall acute wound failure and incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the mesh group compared to non-mesh group (odd ratio (OR) 0.23, p = 0.002) and (OR 0.21, p = 0.00001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the following outcomes: total operative time (mean difference (MD) 21.44, p = 0.15), SSI (OR 1.47, p = 0.06), seroma/haematoma formation (OR 2.74, p = 0.07), grade ≥ 3 Clavien-Dindo complications (OR 2.39, p = 0.28), and LOS (MD 0.26, p = 0.84). The current evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy is diverse and obscure. Although the data trends towards a reduction in the incidence of IH, a reliable conclusion requires further high-quality RCTs to fully assess the efficacy and safety of mesh use in an emergency setting.

Prophylactic retrorectus mesh versus no mesh in midline emergency laparotomy closure for prevention of incisional hernia (PREEMER): study protocol for a multicentre, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundDespite the fact that emergency midline laparotomy is a risk factor for an incisional hernia, active research on hernia prevention in emergency settings is lacking. Different kinds of meshes and mesh positions have been studied in elective abdominal surgery, but no randomized controlled trials in emergency settings have been published thus far.MethodThe PREEMER trial (registration number NCT04311788) is a multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial to be conducted in six hospitals in Finland. A total of 244 patients will be randomized at a 1 : 1 ratio to either the retrorectus mesh group, featuring a self-gripping prophylactic mesh, or to the no mesh (control) group, both closed by small-stitch 4 : 1 closure with continuous slowly absorbable monofilament suturing. The primary outcome of the PREEMER trial is the incidence of incisional hernia 2 years after surgery, which will be detected clinically and/or radiologically. Secondary outcomes are the Comprehensive Complication Index score, incidence of surgical-site infections and fascial dehiscence within 30 days of surgery; the incisional hernia repair rate and mesh- or hernia-related reoperations within the 2- and 5-year follow-ups; the incidence of incisional hernia within the 5-year follow-up; and quality of life measured by RAND-36, the Activities Assessment Scale and the PROMIS questionnaire within 30 days and 2 and 5 years from surgery. Additionally, health–economic explorative measures will be explored.ConclusionThe PREEMER trial will provide level 1 evidence on incisional hernia prevention in an emergency setting.Registration numberNCT04311788 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Registered 7 March 2020.

O03 SMALL BITES AND PROPHYLACTIC MESH TO PREVENT INCISIONAL HERNIA IN HIGH-RISK PATIENTS. A MESH IS THE MOST POWERFUL TOOL

Abstract Aim Small bites (SB) technique for closure of elective midline laparotomies (EMLs) and a prophylactic mesh (PM) in high-risk patients are suggested by guidelines to prevent incisional hernias (IHs) and burst abdomen (BA). Our aim was to implement a protocol combining both and to analyze its outcomes. Material and Methods Prospective data collection of all EMLs for one year. Results were analyzed at one month and during follow-up. The incidence of IH and BA was compared by groups depending on the use of a PM (M Group) or not (S Group), and in subgroups related to the closure technique: SB (Subgroups MSB and SSB) or not (Subgroups MLB and MSB). Results A lower number of BA was diagnosed in the M group (OR 0.0692; CI95% 0.008-0.56; P = 0.01) in 197 operations. 163 patients completed a mean follow-up of 29.23 months, with a lower frequency of IH in M group patients (OR = 0.769; CI 95% 0.65 - 0.91; P &amp;lt; 0.0001). Same differences persisted after a propensity matching score: BA (OR = 0.355; CI 95% 0.255 - 0.494; P &amp;lt; 0.0001) and IH (OR = 0.394; CI 95% 0.24 - 0.61; P &amp;lt; 0.0001). Comparing suturing techniques by subgroups any difference in IH and BA appeared. PM was the main factor related to reduction of IH (HR 11.794; CI 95% 4.29 - 32.39; P &amp;lt; 0.0001). Conclusions A PM is the most powerful tool for prevention both IH and BA after EMLs, regardless of the closure technique in patients at high-risk for IHs.

P001 IS PROPHYLACTIC MESH IS ROUTINELY REQUIRED FOR STOMA CONSTRUCTION? IDENTIFICATION OF THE ‘TARGET GROUP’

Abstract Background Evidence to support routine prophylactic mesh insertion during stoma construction is conflicting. The PREVENT randomised controlled trial (RCT) suggested lower incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) with prophylactic mesh but with no quality of life or cost benefit. Another two RCTs has shown no prophylactic benefit (STOMAMESH &amp; STOMA-const). Although European Hernia guidelines recommends routine prophylactic mesh in end-colostomy, NICE guidelines suggest mesh on individual basis not routinely. Aim To identify the group with higher risk to develop a symptomatic PSH when prophylactic mesh should be considered Material and Methods A single center retrospective review of all stoma formed. Younger patient than 18 years and patients who had less than 6 months’ follow-up were excluded. Development of PSH was confirmed by radiological evidence or direct intra-operative visualization Results 194 patients between January 2015 till December 2019 were included with mean follow-up of 15.7±13.5 months where 91 patients developed PSH. On multivariate analysis, older age (&amp;gt;65) (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.08 – 4.99, p 0.03) and Obesity (OR 5.8, 95% CI 2.53 – 13.57, p 0.00) were risk factors of developing PSH. Among the PSH group, 28 were symptomatic (31%). Symptomatic subgroup had higher ASA (ASA &amp;gt;2) than asymptomatic subgroup (50% Vs 27%, p 0.05) Conclusions Obese patients older than 65 years are at increased risk of PSH. IF their ASA &amp;gt;2 this PSH is likely to become symptomatic. This is the group who should benefit the most from prophylactic measures including mesh insertion and should be targeted for future trials

O04 DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF MESH WIDTH AND FIXATION PATTERNS ON THE STRENGTH OF PROPHYLACTICALLY REINFORCED LAPAROTOMY INCISIONS

Abstract Aim Research indicates that prophylactic mesh may help prevent incisional hernia after laparotomy, but best practice patterns in these situations are still evolving. Here, we compare the failure loads (FLs) and biomechanical stiffness (BMS) of 35 porcine abdominal wall laparotomy incisions reinforced with meshes of various widths and fixation distances using biomechanical testing. Material and Methods In each specimen, a ten centimeter (cm) incision was made and closed using continuous 1-0 Maxon suture. Specimens were randomized to mesh width (none, 2.5cm, 3cm, 4cm, 6cm, 8cm) and tack separation (1.5cm, 2cm apart), and the meshes secured in an onlay fashion. Cyclic loads oscillating from 15 Newtons (N) to 140N were applied to stimulate abdominal wall stress, and the specimens subsequently loaded to failure. FLs (N) and BMS (N/mm) were comparatively analyzed. Results All specimens failed via suture pull-through. FLs and BMS were lowest in specimens with suture-only (421.43 N; 11.69 N/mm). FLs and BMS were significantly higher in 4cm mesh specimens (567.51N) than those with suture, 2.5cm, and 3.0cm mesh (all p &amp;lt; 0.05). FLs in specimens with a greater number of tacks were consistently higher in meshes of similar sizes, although these did not reach significance. Conclusions Four cm mesh re-enforcement is superior to suture-only and smaller meshes at preserving strength in laparotomy closure in the early stages of healing, but larger meshes (6cm, 8cm) do not provide additional benefit. Meshes with more fixation points may be advantageous, but additional data is needed to make definitive conclusions.

O01 PROPHYLACTIC MESH PLACEMENT DURING FORMATION OF AN END-COLOSTOMY LONG TERM RCT ON EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY

Abstract Aim To determine if prophylactic mesh placement is an effective, safe, and cost-effective procedure to prevent parastomal hernia (PSH) formation in the long term. Material and Methods In this multicenter superiority trial patients undergoing formation of a permanent colostomy were randomly assigned to either retromuscular mesh reinforcement or conventional colostomy formation. The 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 non-mesh group (n = 78). For the long term follow up, we could analyse 113 patients since 37 patients were lost to follow-up. After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 48.6 – 64.4), 49 patients developed a PSH, 20 (27.8%) in the mesh group and 29 (37.2%) in the non-mesh group (p = 0.22; 95% CI -24 – 5.5). A total of 25 patients developed an incisional hernia, seven in the mesh group (10.4%) versus 18 in the non-mesh group (27.2%) (p = 0.013, 95% CI 3.5 – 30.0). No relevant differences were found in quality of life or cost-effectiveness between both study group. Conclusions Use of a prophylactic retromuscular mesh at the ostomy site delays but not reduces the incidence of PSH after 5 years of follow-up. It leads to less severe PSH according to the EHS and MM classification with fewer repairs needed. Furthermore it causes patients to have fewer stoma related complications necessitating change of appliances and it is safe without any adverse events or increase in morbidity.

OV18 ENDOSCOPIC RETRO-MUSCULAR REPAIR OF PARASTOMAL HERNIA - A TANTALIZING NEW TECHNIQUE

Abstract Development of retro muscular space with transversus abdominis release has reached maturity in endoscopic surgery. Next-level reconstruction is adaptation to parastomal hernia repair alone or in conjunction with another abdominal wall hernia repair. We aim to present this extraperitoneal modified mesh technique based on the Sugarbaker principle with video demonstration and share clinical data and results from twenty-four patients operated with this technique within two years from the spring of 2019 to the spring of 2021. 77% patients had para-colostomy hernia and 41% of the patients had accessory repairs for midline or opposite flank hernia. 18% had prophylactic mesh at index operation, 27% were recurrent parastomal hernia and ostomies were formed median 32 months prior to parastomal hernia repair. 72% of the patients were operated robotically and 28% laparoscopically. Median follow up at time for presentation will be 17 months.