2. “Some degree of herniation around a colostomy is so common
that this complication may be regarded as inevitable”
Goligher
3.
4. What is the incidence of parastomal hernias?
Is there a difference in the incidence of parastomal hernia for
colostomy, ileostomy or ileal conduit?
5. INCIDENCE
Estimation de l’incidence globale de la hernie parastomiale:
30 % à 12 mois
40 % à 2 ans
50 % lors d’un suivi supérieur
La colostomie terminale est associée à une incidence plus élevée
de hernie parastomiale , en comparaison à la colostomie latérale
ou à l’iléostomie latérale.
6. Parastomal Hernia Risks Factors
Patient factors
Age
Intra-abdominal pressure factors
Obesity
Emphysema
Wound healing factors
Infection
Steroids
Genetics (collagen deficiency)
Surgical Technique
Site outside of rectus sheath
Stoma defect created too large
7. Symptoms of parastomal hernia
Protrusion of stoma beyond abdominal wall
Prolapse of stoma
Enlargement of stoma
Appliance leakage / poor fit
Pain
Incarceration or strangulation
14. What is the diagnostic accuracy of the
clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernias
versus a diagnosis by medical imaging?
Physical examination – on lying down and standing with
valsalva
Digital examination enables the fascial aperture and par
astomal tissues to be assessed
Imaging
15.
16. Are there techniques for stoma creation
that result in fewer parastomal hernias?
1. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal stoma construction
2. Stoma construction at a lateral pararectus location versus a
transrectus location
3. Size of the fascial aperture
No recommendation can be made in preference of stoma construction through
the extraperitoneal over the transperitoneal route.
No recommendation can be made in preference of stoma construction at a
lateral pararectus location over a
transrectus location.
We suggest keeping the size of the fascial
aperture as small as possible to allow passage of the intestine
through the abdominal wall without causing ischemia.
17. Does the use of a prophylactic mesh during
stoma construction reduce the incidence of
parastomal hernias?
21. Indications for hernia repair
Surgical repair is indicated for patients who develop acute
parastomal hernia complications and for those with chronic
symptoms that impair the quality of life.
22. Acute complications
— There is a low rate of life-threatening complications
associated with parastomal hernia .
Urgent or emergent surgical repair is necessary for patients with
a bowel obstruction resulting from an incarcerated hernia
because of the risk for strangulation and bowel ischemia
23. Chronic bothersome symptoms
Patients with chronic symptoms that impair the quality of life are listed
below, and patients may benefit from elective hernia repair.
●Stoma appliance dysfunction and leakage not responsive to
conservative measures.
●Peristomal skin breakdown related to shear injury or ischemia from
pressure on the thinned peristomal skin.
●Recurrent partial bowel obstruction.
●Chronic abdominal pain related to the parastomal hernia.
25. Is there a place for watchful waiting in
patients with a parastomal hernia?
26.
27. Direct fascial repair
Reduce size of hernia defect by reapproximating the fascial edges of trephine with sutures
Advantage :
simple technique
avoids laparotomy
low complication rate in elective operation
may have a role when there is a strong desire to avoid mesh or more major surgery
Disadvantage :
excessive tension and subsequent failure
in large fascial defect high recurrence rate – reported in various literature to be 46 100%
28. Is a suture repair for elective parastomal
hernia repair an option?
It is recommended not to perform a suture repair for elective
parastomal hernia surgery because of a high risk of recurrence,
This approach should be reserved for patients with co-morbidities, short life expectancy
or with a contra-indication for suture repair with prosthetic reinforcement (emergency
surgery, strangulation with ischemic compromise, cirrhotic patients with ascites. . .).
29. Stoma relocation
Advantage:
useful if the current stoma position unsatisfactory
can be done with or without laparotomy
lower recurrence rate than direct fascial repair
Disadvantage:
local recurrence rate reported in literature ~36.3%
(range up to 76.2%)
not feasible if patient has multiple previous scars
risk of incisional hernia at the site of the original
stoma or midline wound more risk of morbidity if
require laparotomy
31. Prosthesis after stoma relocation.
Some authors propose placement of prosthesis
covering the two sites, the stoma and the midline
incision, to prevent recurrent abdominal
wall hernia
32. Stoma relocation
This approach avoided because the new stoma at new site is associated with
the same high risk of hernia formation
33. Mesh repair
Overall recurrence rates after mesh repair vary between 7-
17% (depending on technique and placement of mesh)
Overall mesh infection rate 2.4%
Risk of mesh infection did not differ between mesh
techniques
34. Onlay technique
First described by Rosin and Bonardi
in 1977
Mesh placed subcutaneously and fixed
onto the anterior rectus aponeurosis
Prefascial plane was entered through a
lateral parastomal incision
After reduction of hernia sac, the fascial
opening was narrowed with sutures and
mesh was placed to reinforce the
suture repair
35. Onlay technique
Advantage:
more straight forward surgical technique involving a mesh
avoids intra-abdominal dissection
Disadvantage:
higher risk of contamination & sepsis than sublay technique
extensive dissection of subcutaneous tissue
predisposes to hematoma / seroma formation
risk for ischemic injury to skin => impair wound healing
Intra-abdominal pressure may lead to detachment of mesh resulting
in recurrence
37. Sublay technique
Mesh placed between rectus muscle and posterior sheath
Fewer studies evaluating this method of mesh placement
Small series with relatively short follow up (most <12mo)
Overall recurrence rate 6.9%
38. Sublay technique
Advantage
intraabdominal pressure does not dislocate the mesh from
repairno direct contact with bowel
Disadvantage
more technically challenging than onlay technique
39. Inlay tecnique
Mesh cut to size of abdominal wall defect, placed within fascial
defect and sutured to fascial edges
Abandoned because of high failure rates
40. Intraperitoneal onlay position (IPOM)
Mesh placed intraabdominally on the peritoneum
2 techniques
Sugarbaker technique
Keyhole technique
41.
42. Sugarbaker
technique
Sugarbaker first described his technique
in 1980
intraperitoneally placed mesh via a
laparotomy and sutured to fascial edge
bowel is lateralized
overlap of mesh and adjacent fascia
Advantage:
generous mesh overlap
flap valve effect created able to withstand
increased intraabdominal pressure
43. Sugarbaker
technique
Disadvantage:
mesh related complications
dense adhesions causing intestinal obstruction
requiring laparotomy
bowel erosion & fistula formation
Main application of these techniques is in laparoscopic
repair
50. For patients with appropriate indications for repair who have
small defects (<5 inches), and no expectation of significant
intra-abdominal adhesions, we suggest a laparoscopic
approach rather than open repair
51.
52. Laparoscopic laparotomy
When feasible, laparoscopic ostomy formation is preferred to
ostomy formation via laparotomy.
Grade of Recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.
53. Loop ileostomy transverse loop
Loop ileostomy is preferred over transverse loop colostomy for
temporary fecal diversion in most cases.
Grade of Recommendation: Weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 2B.
54. Prophylactic mesh?
Lightweight polypropylene mesh may be placed at the time of
permanent ostomy creation to decrease parastomal hernia
rates.
Grade of Recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B
55. Extraperitoneal tunneling of end
colostomies?
Extraperitoneal tunneling of end colostomies may decrease
parastomal hernia rates.
Grade of Recommendation: Weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 2C.
56. stomy-site skin closure?
Stomy-site skin reapproximation should be performed when
feasible, and pursestring skin closure may have advantages
compared with other techniques.
Grade of Recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.
57. Parastomal hernia repair !
Parastomal hernia repair should typically be performed by
using mesh reinforcement or by relocating the stoma.
Grade of Recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.
58. Prosthetic mesh increase infection, erosion ?
Prosthetic mesh may be used during parastomal hernia repair
with low short-term risk of intestinal erosion or mesh infection.
Grade of Recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.
59. Collagen based bioprosthetic grafts?
Bioprosthetic material may be used as an alternative to
synthetic mesh for repair of parastomal hernias.
Grade of Recommendation: Weak recommendation based on low quality evidence, 2C.
60. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair
Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair with mesh may be a
safe alternative to open mesh repair.
Grade of Recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.
61. There are some intra and post-operative
measures that can help to prevent the
development of parastomal hernias, such as:
Correct positioning, placing the orifice through the rectus
muscle
Avoiding excessive opening of the fascia (as small as possible,
as long as it doesn’t compromise stoma perfusion)
Wearing a support garment (belt or underwear)
Avoiding heavy lifting and straining
Avoiding being overweight and maintaining a normal body
mass index when possible