Abstract
Purpose
Parastomal hernias are a common and challenging problem with high rates of wound complications and hernia recurrence after repair. We present our approach to optimizing parastomal hernia repair through preoperative preparation, surgical approach, and postoperative management.
Methods
Patients are carefully evaluated and optimized prior to surgery. Our typical surgical approach involves a generous midline laparotomy and retrorectus dissection followed by a posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release. We typically utilize a Sugarbaker technique for retromuscular mesh placement but also use the retromuscular keyhole or cruciate technique if there is insufficient bowel length.
Results
Previously published results from our institution include wound complication rates of up to 16% after open retromuscular parastomal hernia repair. Stoma-specific complications, such as mesh erosion in the bowel, may be attributed to the mesh placement techniques. Hernia recurrence rates range from 11 to 30% up to 2 years postoperatively.
Conclusion
We prefer an open retromuscular approach with a Sugarbaker mesh configuration to treat complex parastomal hernias. However, wound morbidity and repair failure rates remain high, and additional research is needed to optimize surgical outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Approximately, 450,000 Americans live with an ostomy, of which about 50% will develop a parastomal hernia within the first two years [1, 2]. Parastomal hernia repairs are inherently challenging operations for several reasons, including frequently complex surgical histories, the presence of an unavoidable defect in the abdominal wall needed to accommodate the stoma, the high risk of contamination, and a scarcity of comparative prospective data to guide the surgical approach. This difficulty is reflected in a persistently high recurrence rate, up to 73% in some series [3], and limited guidance from hernia societies based on low-quality evidence [4]. While patients may present with incarcerations prompting emergent repair, elective repair is generally indicated for large parastomal hernias that are symptomatic (i.e., causing obstructions, pain, or poor ostomy appliance fit).
As a tertiary referral center, the parastomal hernias we repair are frequently recurrent (45%), European Hernia Classification IV (49%), and present with a mean defect width of 15.8 cm and a mean defect length of 22.9 cm [5]. Considering the surgical complexity of this population, we typically approach repair through a midline laparotomy with retromuscular mesh placement. Despite the many challenges inherent to parastomal hernia repair, it is critical for hernia surgeons to optimize their reconstructive approach. We aim to describe our typical open retromuscular approach to repairing complex parastomal hernias.
Methods
Optimizing the patient
All patients presenting to our institution with parastomal hernias are evaluated with a thorough history and physical examination. Comorbidities are evaluated and optimized as possible. Notably, while weight loss, glycemic control, and smoking cessation are recommended as applicable, we do not typically withhold elective repairs in symptomatic patients based on these risk factors alone. We routinely obtain non-contrasted computed tomography scans to assess abdominal wall and hernia anatomy, concomitant intraabdominal pathology, and evidence of previous repairs. It is important to consider the underlying disease process that led to the creation of a stoma as many of these patients are medically complex. Based on the etiology of the stoma, additional diagnostic studies or consultations may be warranted, for example, to assess candidacy for stoma reversal, evaluate ureteral length and angulation of ileal conduits, and to monitor disease recurrence in the setting of malignancy. For complex patients requiring additional intraabdominal operations, a staged approach to parastomal hernia repair should be considered [6].
Operative preparation
Patients with planned ostomy relocation undergo preoperative consultation with a certified stoma nurse prior to surgery to identify optimal stoma locations. Of note, stoma location management preference is addressed preoperatively and reflects joint decision-making between the patient and surgeon. Patients are positioned supine with arms out and receive venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, the surgical site is prepped, and preoperative intravenous antibiotics are administered according to SCIP guidelines [7]. Intestinal stomas are infrequently sutured closed at the discretion of the surgeon, but are ubiquitously covered with a sponge and transparent dressing to limit contamination. For ileal conduits, a sterile catheter is placed into the stoma after draping to allow for intraoperative urinary drainage.
Adhesiolysis and stoma management
A generous midline laparotomy is made, starting at least several centimeters cephalad to any previous scar tissue, which is excised. The native linea alba is identified at the superior aspect of the incision and is then divided progressively caudad as adhesions are sharply lysed free from the undersurface. Once the linea alba is fully divided, a full adhesiolysis of all adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall is performed sharply. Previous mesh is generally excised if present. The parastomal hernia is then reduced and stoma management is considered. If the stoma is being left in situ, which is our preference, the stoma bowel adhesions must be carefully dissected from the abdominal wall aperture. If the stoma is re-sited or re-matured in the same location, then the mucocutaneous junction is divided and the bowel is dissected free from the aperture before dividing the distal end with a linear stapler.
Component separation
A moist towel is placed over the viscera for protection during the retromuscular dissection, then the hernia defect width and length are measured with a ruler. The retrorectus plane is entered lateral to the linea alba, with visualization of the rectus muscle as confirmation of the correct location, and the posterior rectus sheath is incised along the length of the incision. The retrorectus plane between the rectus muscle and posterior rectus sheath is developed laterally using electrocautery until the perforating neurovascular bundles are encountered just medial to the linea semilunaris. Care must be taken to avoid injury to the bowel during this dissection if the stoma was left in situ. The posterior lamella of the internal abdominal oblique aponeurosis is incised just medial to the neurovascular bundles to expose the transversus abdominis muscle. The transversus abdominis may be divided cephalad to caudad or vice versa, but it is important to recognize that it transitions from muscular fibers in the upper abdomen to aponeurotic fibers in the mid-abdomen and does not contribute to the posterior rectus sheath below the arcuate line. Once the transversus abdominis is divided along its length, the preperitoneal or pretransversalis plane can be developed laterally to the psoas, superiorly to the costal margin and central tendon of the diaphragm, and inferiorly to the retropubic space using sharp or blunt dissection of the transversus abdominis muscle fibers from the peritoneum below. The goals of this dissection are to reduce tension on the posterior rectus sheath closure and to allow for an adequate pocket for the mesh. The area behind the stoma is most easily addressed by dividing the transversus abdominis superior and inferior to the aperture, and then merging those planes laterally.
Mesh placement
Commonly used mesh configurations include the keyhole, cruciate, and retromuscular Sugarbaker techniques. We typically use a mediumweight polypropylene mesh that is at least 30 cm × 30 cm placed in a diamond configuration to allow for at least 5 cm of hernia overlap in all directions. Our practice is to preferentially use a retromuscular Sugarbaker mesh configuration unless there is inadequate bowel and/or mesenteric length or in the case of a continent urostomy, in which case a keyhole or cruciate mesh configuration is used.
Keyhole configuration
For stomas left in situ, a keyhole mesh configuration may be used (Fig. 1). The stoma aperture in the posterior sheath is tightened just enough to accommodate the stoma bowel and then the posterior rectus sheath is closed using a running absorbable suture. The anterior fascial defect is tightened with the figure of eight slowly absorbable sutures. We then place the mesh in the retromuscular space and a slit is made in it to accommodate the bowel. Care is taken at this step to ensure that the aperture in the mesh is aligned with the anterior and posterior sheath apertures to prevent “scissoring’ of the bowel. The free ends of the slit may be closed behind the stoma bowel using a permanent suture.
Cruciate configuration
For stomas that are taken down and re-matured, a cruciate mesh configuration may be used. The stoma bowel is brought through a fenestration in the peritoneum and the posterior rectus sheath is closed. A cruciate incision is then made in the mesh where the bowel is anticipated to pass through it. The bowel is pulled through the cruciate incision and the mesh is placed in the retromuscular space. The bowel is then gently pulled through the anterior aperture. All three apertures—the posterior fascia, mesh, and anterior fascia—must be aligned to prevent mesh erosion into the stoma. The apertures should also be just large enough to accommodate the bowel.
Retromuscular sugarbaker
Before selecting a retromuscular Sugarbaker mesh configuration, we verify that there is adequate bowel length to allow for lateralization. If the stoma is left in situ, the peritoneum is slit laterally, the stomal bowel is moved laterally in the retromuscular space, and then the peritoneum is closed medially to the bowel with running absorbable suture (Fig. 2). This allows the posterior fascial aperture to be offset from the anterior fascial aperture. The anterior fascial defect is tightened with a figure of eight slowly absorbable sutures. If the stoma is taken down, then a new lateral opening can be created in the peritoneum to pull the bowel through prior to closing the posterior rectus sheath. The mesh is placed in the retromuscular space in, often in a diamond configuration (Fig. 3). The mesh can be allowed to abut the stoma at the lateral edge or it can be slit to wrap around the stoma. If the mesh is slit, we do not sew the free ends together behind the stoma bowel.
We generally avoid fixating the mesh near the stoma bowel given our previous experiences with mesh erosions, which were attributed to transfascial fixation sutures [8].
Closure
If the stoma is left in situ, the defect is tightened around the bowel using large, slowly absorbable sutures in a figure-of-eight pattern. We typically leave two closed suction drains in the retromuscular space and subcutaneous drains are placed at the discretion of the surgeon. The linea alba is approximated using large, slowly absorbable sutures in a series of interrupted figure-of-eights. The soft tissue is closed in layers with absorbable sutures. In cases of stoma relocation, the fascial defects from old stoma sites are loosely closed in a purse string fashion. Finally, the stoma is matured.
Postoperative care
Postoperatively, patients are admitted to a surgical floor and placed on an enhanced recovery pathway [9]. Patients are started on clear liquids on the day of surgery and progressed as tolerated. Multimodal pain control is implemented with a goal to minimize opioid analgesia. Antibiotic management is at the discretion of the surgeon but is generally not continued beyond 24 h postoperatively. Retromuscular drains are typically removed when the output is 50 mL/day or prior to discharge.
Results
Our institution has previously published our outcomes following parastomal hernia repairs. Our early institutional experiences with both keyhole and retromuscular Sugarbaker repairs showed promising recurrence rates of 11% at 13 months, but significant wound morbidity and stoma-related complications of necrosis, bowel obstruction, and perforation after both techniques [8, 10]. Early outcomes of our randomized controlled trial of keyhole and Sugarbaker mesh configurations for open retromuscular parastomal hernia repairs found a 16% rate of wound complications requiring procedural intervention and a 6.7% reoperation rate within 90 days postoperatively. Stoma-related complications were observed, including necrosis, distal obstruction, and mucocutaneous separation. Although the morbidity was high for all patients, there were no significant differences between keyhole and Sugarbaker techniques [5]. A post hoc analysis of another randomized controlled trial at our institution suggested a recurrence advantage for the Sugarbaker technique over keyhole (11% vs 30%) recurrence at 2 years, respectively [11]. This possible recurrence advantage is currently under investigation in a randomized controlled trial [12].
Discussion
Here, we describe our approach to complex parastomal hernias. There are multiple advantages to the open retromuscular approach. Retromuscular placement of mesh, as compared to alternative mesh locations, is likely associated with recurrence and wound complication advantages [13]. Patients with parastomal hernias in the setting of permanent stomas often have concomitant midline defects and hernias from previous stoma sites, which may all be addressed through an open retromuscular approach.
There are a few key considerations when performing these repairs. One consideration is to avoid twisting of the stoma bowel which may compromise the blood supply, cause mechanical obstruction, or disrupt the mucocutaneous junction. Additionally, whether performing a keyhole or retromuscular Sugarbaker repair, the apertures in the fascial layers should be snug enough to just allow the stoma bowel passage without additional bowel loops. Care should be taken in the placement of the mesh to avoid excessive tension or misalignment between the stoma bowel and the mesh that may lead to mesh erosion. There is a lack of evidence in the literature regarding optimal stoma disposition management, so at this time the decision to leave the stoma in situ versus rematuring or resiting the stoma is left to the discretion of the surgeon and the preference of the patient.
We advocate that surgeons attempting these repairs should have advanced training in abdominal wall surgery. Component separations for ventral hernias require a thorough understanding of abdominal wall anatomy and familiarity with operating in multiple reoperative tissue planes. The presence of a stoma increases the technical difficulty of components separation. Multidisciplinary collaboration with colorectal and urological surgeons is important for identifying additional interventions that may be needed and for optimizing the timing of repair. We also want to emphasize the importance of engaging perioperative care teams, including anesthesia staff, nurses, intensive care units, and stoma nurses to optimize diagnosis and management of complications.
We are not advocating for this open, retromuscular approach in all patients with parastomal hernias. Retromuscular repairs have many advantages but should be utilized judiciously as recurrence rates may approach 20% and redo-retromuscular hernia repairs are associated with significant morbidity [14]. Considering the high incidence and persistently high recurrence rates for parastomal hernias, it is important to carefully assess patients and their symptoms prior to recommending repair. Laparoscopic and robotic repairs have been described and are alternative approaches that may be considered for patients with small to medium parastomal defects [15, 16]. While surgeons within our institution have experience with laparoscopy and robotic surgery, the population presenting to our center tends to be complex and less amenable to minimally invasive approaches. In the setting of acute incarceration or mesh infection, there are often multiple barriers to successful optimization for reconstruction, including limited time to fully evaluate the patient, increased contamination, and in some cases medical instability. In these cases, we favor a primary parastomal repair, with definitive abdominal wall reconstruction delayed until the patient is optimized [6].
Summary
Parastomal hernias can be challenging for even experienced abdominal wall surgeons. While more prospective trials are needed to improve outcomes and identify ideal approaches, surgeons can optimize results through comprehensive preoperative patient evaluation and planning, meticulous intraoperative technique, and careful postoperative management.
References
Kritharides N et al (2023) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: keyhole, Sugarbaker, sandwich, or hybrid technique with 3D mesh? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 408(1):448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-03177-9
Turnbull GB (2003) Ostomy statistics: the $64,000 question. Ostomy Wound Manag 49(6):22–23
Fleming AM et al (2023) Sugarbaker versus keyhole repair for parastomal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Gastrointest Surg 27(3):573–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-022-05412-y
Antoniou SA et al (2018) European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias. Hernia 22(1):183–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1697-5
Maskal SM et al (2023) Open retromuscular keyhole compared with Sugarbaker mesh for parastomal hernia repair: early results of a randomized clinical trial. Surg S0039–6060(23):00515–00519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.06.046
Petro CC, Rosen MJ (2018) Fight or flight: the role of staged approaches to complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(3):38S-44S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004847
Rosenberger LH, Politano AD, Sawyer RG (2011) The surgical care improvement project and prevention of post-operative infection. Including Surgical Site Infection Surg Infect 12(3):163–168. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2010.083
Tastaldi L, Haskins IN, Perez AJ, Prabhu AS, Rosenblatt S, Rosen MJ (2017) Single center experience with the modified retromuscular Sugarbaker technique for parastomal hernia repair. Hernia 21(6):941–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1644-5
Colvin J et al (2019) Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction”. Surgery 166(5):849–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.05.023
Raigani S, Criss CN, Petro CC, Prabhu AS, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2014) Single-center experience with parastomal hernia repair using retromuscular mesh placement. J Gastrointest Surg 18(9):1673–1677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2575-4
Miller BT et al (2022) Biologic vs synthetic mesh for parastomal hernia repair: post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Surg 235(3):401–409. https://doi.org/10.1097/XCS.0000000000000275
Miller BT et al (2022) Comparing Sugarbaker versus keyhole mesh technique for open retromuscular parastomal hernia repair: study protocol for a registry-based randomized controlled trial. Trials 23(1):251. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06207-x
Holihan JL, Nguyen DH, Nguyen MT, Mo J, Kao LS, Liang MK (2016) Mesh location in open ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Surg 40(1):89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3252-9
Montelione KC et al (2021) Outcomes of redo-transversus abdominis release for abdominal wall reconstruction. Hernia 25(6):1581–1592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02457-x
Muysoms F (2007) Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias with a modified sugarbaker technique. Acta Chir Belg 107(4):476–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2007.11680104
Morrell DJ, Blatnik JA, Pauli EM (2020) Robotic parastomal hernia repair: modified retromuscular sugarbaker. In: Kudsi OY (ed) Robotic hernia surgery: a comprehensive illustrated guide. Springer International Publishing, UK, pp 237–258
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There was no funding for this work. Sara Maskal accepted a resident research grant from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative. Benjamin Miller accepted grants from the American Hernia Society and Integra.
Ethical approval, human and animal rights and informed consent
This does not constitute human subjects research, therefore did not require informed consent or ethical approval.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Maskal, S.M., Ellis, R.C. & Miller, B.T. Parastomal hernia repair, trying to optimize the impossible reconstruction. Hernia 28, 931–936 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03041-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03041-9