Parastomal Hernia Clinical Trial
— RPMPPHOfficial title:
Prospective Randomized Study of the Role of Prosthetic Mesh in Preventing Parastomal Hernias in Patients With Definitive End Colostomy
Introduction Parastomal hernia is the most common complication related to colostomies. The
variability of the diagnostic criteria, the fallow up time and sometimes subclinical
dimensions, detectable only with imaging, explain disparate figures cited in the literature
(0-58%) (1). The generally accepted rate is around 50% (2). However, several authors
consider that actually, almost all patients present parastomal hernia in the long-term
fallow up (3).
Prophylactic prosthetic meshes could reduce the incidence of this complication, reinforcing
since the beginning the weak peristomal area of the abdominal wall. Existing scientific
evidence, although positive, is limited and does not allow to clarify some controversial
issues as the type of prosthetic mesh to be used and the optimal position of the mesh in
relation to the abdominal wall (4-8).
The use of laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery is increasing and also sets technical
changes to the placement of the mesh. To date, there are some technical notes (9) and two
published prospective, observational studies that include patients underwent laparoscopic
surgery. In the first study intraperitoneal (10) and in the second retromuscular mesh (11)
is used, with encouraging short-term results, but they need more scientific support.
Study Design This is a prospective, randomized, single center, clinical study where the
sample is represented by patients undergoing elective laparoscopy assisted colorectal
surgery, with the creation of a permanent end colostomy. Patients who accept to participate
and are suitable for inclusion to the study will be randomized into one of the two branches
consecutively: Treatment A: Conventional definitive end colostomy; Treatment B: Definitive
end colostomy reinforced by retromuscular mesh Ultrapro.
Aims Evaluate and compare the results obtained by placing prosthetic mesh to prevent
parastomal hernia end colostomy versus realization of end colostomy by conventional
technique.
Primary Objective: Compare the incidence of parastomal hernias between groups during the
monitoring period.
Secondary objectives: Compare the overall and specific postoperative morbidity and mortality
between groups, compare the difference in surgical time between the conventional technique
and the prosthetic mesh group, compare hospital stay between the groups.
Status | Recruiting |
Enrollment | 60 |
Est. completion date | October 2016 |
Est. primary completion date | October 2015 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | Both |
Age group | 18 Years to 85 Years |
Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - Patients with colorectal disease that require realization of definitive end colostomy - Laparoscopy assisted interventions - Interventions intended to radical treatment in case of oncologic pathology - Signed informed consent by the patient or representative in case of incapacity Exclusion Criteria: - No acceptance to participate or inability to obtain signed informed consent - Urgent interventions - Palliative interventions - Lateral colostomies - American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification IV-V |
Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Prevention
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Spain | Hospital de Santa Creu i Sant Pau | Barcelona |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Fundació Institut de Recerca de l'Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau |
Spain,
Berger D. Prevention of parastomal hernias by prophylactic use of a specially designed intraperitoneal onlay mesh (Dynamesh IPST). Hernia. 2008 Jun;12(3):243-6. Epub 2007 Dec 11. — View Citation
Gögenur I, Mortensen J, Harvald T, Rosenberg J, Fischer A. Prevention of parastomal hernia by placement of a polypropylene mesh at the primary operation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 Aug;49(8):1131-5. — View Citation
Goligher JC. Surgery of the anus, rectum and colon. 5th ed. London: Bailliere-Tindall; 1985.
Helgstrand F, Gögenur I, Rosenberg J. Prevention of parastomal hernia by the placement of a mesh at the primary operation. Hernia. 2008 Dec;12(6):577-82. doi: 10.1007/s10029-008-0387-8. Epub 2008 Jun 4. Review. — View Citation
Israelsson LA. Preventing and treating parastomal hernia. World J Surg. 2005 Aug;29(8):1086-9. Review. — View Citation
Jänes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh. Arch Surg. 2004 Dec;139(12):1356-8. — View Citation
Jänes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up of a randomized study. World J Surg. 2009 Jan;33(1):118-21; discussion 122-3. doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9785-4. — View Citation
Janson AR, Jänes A, Israelsson LA. Laparoscopic stoma formation with a prophylactic prosthetic mesh. Hernia. 2010 Oct;14(5):495-8. doi: 10.1007/s10029-010-0673-0. Epub 2010 May 23. — View Citation
López-Cano M, Lozoya-Trujillo R, Espin-Basany E. Prosthetic mesh in parastomal hernia prevention. Laparoscopic approach. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009 May;52(5):1006-7. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e31819a6a58. — View Citation
Moreno-Matias J, Serra-Aracil X, Darnell-Martin A, Bombardo-Junca J, Mora-Lopez L, Alcantara-Moral M, Rebasa P, Ayguavives-Garnica I, Navarro-Soto S. The prevalence of parastomal hernia after formation of an end colostomy. A new clinico-radiological classification. Colorectal Dis. 2009 Feb;11(2):173-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01564.x. Epub 2008 May 3. — View Citation
Rubin MS, Schoetz DJ Jr, Matthews JB. Parastomal hernia. Is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg. 1994 Apr;129(4):413-8; discussion 418-9. — View Citation
Vijayasekar C, Marimuthu K, Jadhav V, Mathew G. Parastomal hernia: Is prevention better than cure? Use of preperitoneal polypropylene mesh at the time of stoma formation. Tech Coloproctol. 2008 Dec;12(4):309-13. doi: 10.1007/s10151-008-0441-7. Epub 2008 Nov 18. — View Citation
* Note: There are 12 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Compare the incidence of parastomal hernias between groups | Monitoring will be realized with clinical controls (after 15 days and 2, 6, 12 months) and with an abdominal computed tomography in the first year. The expected result is the statistically significant reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernias in patients undergoing elective laparoscopy assisted colorectal surgery with realization of end colostomy reinforced with retromuscular mesh collocation |
During the monitoring period of one year | Yes |
Secondary | Compare the overall and specific postoperative morbidity and mortality between groups | Monitoring will be realized with clinical controls (after 15 days and 2, 6, 12 months) and with an abdominal computed tomography in the first year | During the monitoring period of one year | Yes |
Secondary | Compare the difference in surgical time between the conventional technique and the prosthetic mesh group | The duration of the surgery will be compared bentween the groups | During the surgery | Yes |
Secondary | Compare hospital stay between the groups | Days of hospital stay will be compared between the groups | Patientes will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 14 days | Yes |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Terminated |
NCT05514600 -
Fascial Defect Closure for Minimally Invasive Parastomal Hernia Repair
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT04311333 -
Endostomal Three-dimensional Ultrasonography for Parastomal Hernia
|
N/A | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT06077318 -
Comparison of the Sugarbaker and Keyhole Repair for Parastomal Hernia
|
||
Completed |
NCT01380860 -
Primary Prevention of Peristomial Hernias Via Parietal Prostheses
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT00908661 -
Effectiveness of a Lightweight Mesh in the Laparoscopic Prevention of Parastomal Hernia
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT04282473 -
Peristomal Hernia Rate 5 Years After a Terminal Colostomy With the Parietex ™ TCM Parietal Prosthesis Versus Without Mesh
|
||
Completed |
NCT03792243 -
Outcomes After Parastomal Hernia Repair
|
||
Terminated |
NCT00641342 -
Prevention of Parastomal Hernia by Primary Mesh Insertion
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Terminated |
NCT04966065 -
Evaluation of the Parietex TM Parastomal No Hole Mesh for Repair of Parastomal Hernias in End-colostomies
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT04440514 -
Endoscopic Preperitoneal Parastomal Hernia Repair (ePauli Repair)
|
||
Not yet recruiting |
NCT04950140 -
Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for the Treatment of Parastomal Hernia of the Oncology Patient
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT02489175 -
Stomaplasty Ring (KoringTM) for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT03667287 -
Stoma Hernia Intraperitoneal Full-Thickness Skin
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT01722565 -
Prospective Study of the Use of a Mesh to Prevent Parastomal Hernia After Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT02368873 -
the Use of a IPOM Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT00917995 -
Trial Concerning the Frequency of Parastomal Hernia With or Without a Mesh
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT02233465 -
Treating Parastomal Hernia With a Mesh
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT01484743 -
Risk Factors for Morbidity After Parastomal Hernia Repair
|
||
Completed |
NCT00509054 -
Prevention of Parastomal Hernia With a Mesh
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT04187235 -
Laparascopic Keyhole vs Sugarbaker Repair in Parastomal Hernia
|