Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37843603›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024

How often is prophylactic parastomal mesh placement performed after rectal resection without sphincter preservation? An analysis of German nationwide hospital discharge data among 41,697 patients.

C Paasch, E Kobelt, S Lünse, S Heisler, R Lorenz, R Hunger, R Mantke

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Parastomal Hernia Prevention Guidelines: Methodology and Limitations.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C PaaschDepartment of Surgery, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770, Brandenburg, Germany. christoph.paasch@u-brandenburg.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3104-8288
E KobeltFaculty of Health Science Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770, Brandenburg, Germany.
S LünseDepartment of Surgery, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770, Brandenburg, Germany.
S HeislerDepartment of Surgery, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770, Brandenburg, Germany.
R LorenzDepartment of Surgery, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770, Brandenburg, Germany.
R HungerFaculty of Health Science Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770, Brandenburg, Germany.
R MantkeDepartment of Surgery, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770, Brandenburg, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Brandenburg an der Havel · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe European Hernia Society guidelines of parastomal hernias, published in 2017, strongly recommend prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon the construction of a permanent end colostomy to reduce the incidence of parastomal hernias. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the guidelines in Germany.

methodsThis is a retrospective multicentric analysis conducted in December 2022 at the University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel. Anonymous data on rectal resection without sphincter preservation in the period 2010-2020 were extracted from the German nationwide hospital discharge data set. Individuals with a hernia and < 18 years old were excluded. Another exclusion criterion was a performed colectomy or proctocolectomy with an ileoanal pouch and placement of an absorbable mesh. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of prophylactic parastomal mesh placement following rectal resection without sphincter preservation in Germany. Cases reporting both non-absorbable mesh placement and rectal resection without sphincter preservation were considered prophylactic mesh insertions.

resultsA total of 41,697 patients received a rectal resection without sphincter preservation and without non-absorbable mesh placement. Among these individuals, 27,089 were male and 14,608 were female. The rate of reoperations (3.1%) and the length of hospital stay (25.3 days ± 19.32) remained almost constant during these 10 years. The rate of prophylactic mesh placement was increasing from 0.2% (n = 8) in 2010 to 6.4% (n = 198) in 2020.

conclusionsCurrently, only the minority of patients who have undergone rectal resection without sphincter preservation receive prophylactic mesh insertion.

Indexed as

Incisional HerniaRectal NeoplasmsAdolescentFemaleHerniorrhaphyHospitalsHumansMalePatient DischargeRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshGuidelineNon-absorbable meshParastomal herniaProphylactic mesh placementRectum extirpation

Identifiers

PMID37843603
PMCPMC10891180
OpenAlexW4387661820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.