ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Parastomal hernia prevention and repair in Australasia: A binational CSSANZ survey of contemporary practice.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Parastomal Hernia: Rethinking Prevention and Repair in Contemporary Colorectal Surgery.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParastomal hernia (PSH) is a debilitating long-term complication of stoma formation, often required as part of curative or palliative treatment for colorectal cancer. As a common downstream consequence of cancer surgery, PSH contributes significantly to chronic morbidity and impairs quality of life, yet practices surrounding its prevention and repair remain heterogeneous. Despite randomised evidence supporting prophylactic mesh, adoption is limited, and operative approaches to elective and emergency repair vary widely.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of colorectal surgeons in Australia and New Zealand was conducted via the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) to assess current PSH management. The survey examined stoma creation practices, prophylactic and therapeutic mesh use, operative techniques, and responses to clinical vignettes. Subgroup analyses explored variation by surgeon seniority, practice setting, and country.
resultsNinety-three surgeons responded (93/365, 25.5%), including 74/93 (79.6%) from Australia and 19/93 (20.4%) from New Zealand; 79/93 (84.9%) practised in metropolitan centres and 39/93 (41.9%) had > 15 years' experience. Routine prophylactic mesh use at stoma formation was reported by 11/93 (11.8%). For elective repair (n = 89), open access was preferred by 48/89 (53.9%) and Sugarbaker repair was the most common configuration (40/89, 44.9%). Technique selection differed by access: among surgeons favouring minimally invasive surgery (n = 41), 33/41 (80.5%) selected Sugarbaker, whereas those favouring open surgery (n = 48) more often selected keyhole (22/48, 45.8%) or retrorectus "sandwich" repair (18/48, 37.5%) (p < 0.00001). In the emergency small-bowel obstruction vignette, surgeons with > 15 years' experience more often favoured mesh use than those with ≤ 15 years (21/39, 53.8% vs 10/50, 20.0%; p = 0.0015). Overall operative volume was low, with 65/93 (69.9%) reporting 0-5 PSH repairs per year.
conclusionsPSH prevention and repair across Australasia is marked by wide variability, low uptake of prophylactic mesh, and inconsistent technique selection. Operative approach strongly influenced repair configuration, and seniority appeared to drive emergency decision-making. Addressing PSH represents an important opportunity to reduce treatment-related morbidity in patients with pelvic malignancies undergoing stoma formation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.