Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34132954›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2022

Prophylactic retromuscular mesh placement for parastomal hernia prevention: a retrospective cohort study of permanent colostomies and ileostomies.

Jonathan Frigault, Simon Lemieux, Dominic Breton, Philippe Bouchard, Alexandre Bouchard, Roger C Grégoire, François Letarte, Gilles Bouchard, Vincent Boun, Katia Massé and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Prophylactic Mesh in Parastomal Hernia Prevention: Current Evidence.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan FrigaultSurgery Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, QC, Canada. jonathan.frigault.1@ulaval.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5795-2166
Simon LemieuxRadiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
Dominic BretonRadiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
Philippe BouchardSurgery Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Alexandre BouchardSurgery Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Roger C GrégoireSurgery Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, QC, Canada.
François LetarteSurgery Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Gilles BouchardRadiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
Vincent BounLaval University, Quebec, Canada.
Katia MasséLaval University, Quebec, Canada.
Sébastien DroletSurgery Department, CHU de Quebec-Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Université Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeParastomal hernia (PSH) is the most common complication of stoma formation. The safety and efficiency of prophylactically placing mesh to prevent PSH remain controversial. To address this question, we examined the incidence of clinical and radiological PSH when using parastomal prophylactic mesh (PPM).

methodsWe performed a retrospective, single-center, cohort study that included all patients with permanent stoma creation between 2015 and 2018. Patients were divided into two groups according to the utilization of PPM or not.

resultsDuring the study period, 185 patients had a permanent stoma created, 144 with colostomy and 41 with ileostomy. PPM was placed in 79 patients. There was no difference in the need for early surgical reintervention (p = 0.652) or rehospitalization (p = 0.314) for stoma-related complications in patients with mesh as compared with patients without. Similarly, there was no difference in operative time (p = 0.782) or in length of hospital stay (p = 0.806). No patients experienced infection of the mesh or required prosthesis removal. There was a lower incidence rate of PSH with PPM placement in patients with permanent colostomy [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.28-0.89); p = 0.018]. In contrast, a higher incidence rate of PSH was observed in patients with ileostomy and PPM [adjusted HR 5.92 (95% confidence interval 1.07-32.65); p = 0.041].

conclusionParastomal prophylactic mesh placement to prevent PSH is a safe and efficient approach to reduce the incidence of PSH in patients requiring a permanent colostomy. However, mesh may increase the rate of PSH after permanent ileostomy.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralIncisional HerniaSurgical StomasCohort StudiesColostomyHerniorrhaphyHumansIleostomyProstheses and ImplantsRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshParastomal herniaProphylactic preperitoneal mesh

Identifiers

PMID34132954
OpenAlexW3171894429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.