1 / 21

Management of the Parastomal Hernia

Management of the Parastomal Hernia. A Park MD FRCS FACS University Of Maryland Baltimore, MD. Overview:. Some Background – definitions, demographics Pathophysiology & mechanisms of formation Clinical presentation Management & Techniques of repair How well are we doing?

quinn-robinson
Download Presentation

Management of the Parastomal Hernia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Management of the Parastomal Hernia A Park MD FRCS FACS University Of Maryland Baltimore, MD

  2. Overview: • Some Background – definitions, demographics • Pathophysiology & mechanisms of formation • Clinical presentation • Management & Techniques of repair • How well are we doing? • Role of prophylaxis?

  3. Defining Terms – Let’s Be Clear: • A parastomal hernia is an incisional hernia related to an abdominal wall stoma (Carne 2003) • …or even more broadly… • Any palpable defect or bulge adjacent to the stoma detected when the pt is supine with legs elevated or while…straining when the pt is erect (Israelsson 2008)

  4. Devlin’s Classification of PH: • Helpful conceptually but of limited use clinical studies • 4 types, difficult to distinguish in clinically: • i) subcutaneous • ii) interstitial • iii) perstomal • iv) intrastomal

  5. Parastomal Hernias: Incidence • 5% to 50% depending on definition & means of detection • Higher rates more accurate?! • Colostomy > ileostomy? Evidence limited • Lower with loops since shorter duration of stoma

  6. Factors in Formation of Parastomal Hernias: • General pt factors (as with VH): obesity, malnutrition, COPD,  age, wound infection • Trephine size (?!): • - 1 vs 2 fingers (Babcock) • - 1.5 cm (colon) vs 2 cm (ileum) • - ⅔ width of “crushed” intestine (Nguyen)

  7. Stoma Location & PH Formation: • Never through laparotomy incision! (infection, dehiscence, hernia) • Historically through umbilicus when paramedian incision used • Through rectus muscle vs lateral R.A • - limited evidence , no RCT data (2 of 6 retrospective studies suggest some benefit) • Pre op siting - no hernia advantage although more convenient & comfortable!

  8. PH:Clinical Presentation • Most asymptomatic • Mild to life threatening (strangulation) • Often parastomal discomfort, int SBO • Difficulty with stoma appliance – skin irritation, soilage • Psychological issues- more difficult to conceal stoma , smell etc

  9. Surgical Management of PH: • Local Suture Repair (50-100% recurrence) • Relocation of Stoma (36% recur BJS’03) • Mesh Repair • - Inlay vs Onlay vs IPOM (Sub/Underlay) • - Open vs Lap

  10. Stoma Relocation • Should be to contralateral side • - different quad same side… poor outcomes • Suture repair (only) of original site- 26% recurrence • Risk of recurrence at new site same as original(24-86%)even more if 2nd relocation

  11. PH: Mesh Repair/Positioning • Inlay-no role ,recurrence too high • Onlay- on Anterior aponeurosis • - concern re:infection ++ • - Intra abd pressure can displace mesh • - min. data (recur?10%) rarely done • Sublay or IPOM , preferred by most • - slit mesh vs “Sugarbaker”

  12. PH: Open Mesh repair Results(Carne ’03, Israelsson ’08) • No prospective studies (let alone RCTs) • Data paltry, low recur. Short f/u (?) • Infection rates low …although… • Mesh related complications can be high • Presented opportunity for Lap approach

  13. Rubin et al , Arch Surg 1994 • 68 parastomal repairs (55 patients) • f/u median 31 months • Local (fascial) repair- 36 (53%) • Stoma Relocation - 25 (37%) • Mesh Repair (mostly onlay) - 7 (10%)

  14. Rubin (cont.) • 63% overall recurrence • Local repair -76% • Stoma Relocation- 33% (52% got incisional hernia) • Mesh repair - 30%

  15. Berger et al (Dis Colon Rectum ‘07) • Retrospective study 1999-2006 • 66pts ( 22 recur hernias)- no conversions • “Sugarbaker” & slit double mesh technique • Median 24 mo f/u - 12% recurrence • 3 major infections with mesh removal

  16. Mancini et al (Surg Endosc ’07) • Multi-institute consecutive series 2001-2005 • 25 pts (6 recurrent hernias)- no conversions • Largely “Modified Sugarbaker” • Median f/u 19 mos. 4% recurrence • 23% morbidity ( infectious,ileus,pulmonary)

  17. Prevention of Parastomals(Janes, Israelsson et al BJS 2004) • Prospective Randomize Trial: • Pts undergoing colostomy w/wo sublay mesh • ( light weight ,partially absorbable) 2001-2003 • 54 pts entered(27/27) - periop morbidity same • At 12mos f/u: 18 no mesh – 8 recurrences • 16 with mesh – 0 recurrences • Study discontinued although f/u continues

  18. Conclusions • Parastomal hernia remain a common sequela of stoma formation • (Mercifully) many are asymptomatic requiring no treatment • Surgical repair remains a challenge with suboptimal outctomes • Mesh repair (underlay) shows most promise • Must strongly consider prophylactic mesh

More Related