ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: No different than a laparoscopic ventral hernia repair?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: keyhole, Sugarbaker, sandwich, or hybrid technique with 3D mesh? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair delays recurrence relative to open repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParastomal hernia (PH) is a common complication when a stoma is used. The high incidence (35-50%) and patient longevity have created a situation where patients are being referred for consideration of repair with more frequency. Due to the presence of an ostomy and the increased bacterial contamination of the area, the insertion of a prosthetic material is concerning for complications. Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias utilizing a modified Sugarbaker technique has been demonstrated to have excellent outcomes. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that laparoscopic PH repair has outcomes similar to laparoscopic ventral hernia (LVH) repair without the presence of a stoma.
methodsAfter obtaining institutional review board approval, patients with parastomal hernia who underwent laparoscopic repair using Sugarbaker technique between 2009 and 2012 were compared to patients with ventral hernias who underwent LVH repair in a retrospective review, with a match of 1:3. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, operative time, defect size, and mesh size. Outcomes and complications were compared between the two groups.
resultsTwenty patients underwent Sugarbaker repair, and these cases were compared to 60 patients with ventral hernia that received LVH repair. There was no statistically significant difference in age, BMI, smoking status, ASA score, defect size, or mesh size between groups. Operative time was significantly longer in the PH group: 172 ± 35 versus the LVH group: 94 ± 32 min (p < 0.1). Length of stay was longer, 3 days (3-5.5) for PH versus 1 day (1-2.8) for LVH, p < 0.1. The two groups did not differ in terms of wound complications or recurrence, with a median follow-up of 37 days (IQ range 27-518).
conclusionThe Sugarbaker technique is as safe as LVH repair with no more complications given the presence of a stoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26150224What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.