New approach to preventing parastomal hernias – prophylactic mesh implantation in Bricker’s ileal conduit diversion

Czech version

Authors: Pavel Navrátil ^1,2; Miroslav Louda ^1,2; Minh Nguyet Tranová ¹; ; Slavomír Vachata ¹; Lukáš Holub ^1,2; Michal Balík ^1,2; Miloš Bro Ák ^1,2
Authors‘ workplace: Urologická klinika, FN Hradec, Králové ¹; LF UK, Hradec Králové ²
Published in: Ces Urol 2025; 29(1): 12-16
Category:
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccu2025005

Overview

This systematic review article evaluates the efficacy of prophylactic mesh implantation in ileal conduit use, focusing on preventing parastomal hernias and analyzing the risks and benefits of this approach, offering a new perspective on preventing complications in stoma patients.

Parastomal hernia (PH) is a significant complication in patients undergoing surgery with an ileal conduit, with reported incidence rates ranging widely from 10% to 65% in the literature. Due to the high risk and morbidity associated with PH, the potential for prevention through prophylactic mesh implantation is increasingly being explored. This approach, already successfully applied in other types of stoma surgeries, such as colostomies and ileostomies, holds similar promise for patients with an ileal conduit. This systematic review article evaluates six existing studies focusing on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic mesh for PH prevention. The findings suggest that mesh implantation can reduce the incidence of PH with minimal risk of complications, representing an important step toward improved care and quality of life for patients undergoing this type of surgery.

Keywords:

radical cystectomy, parastomal hernia, ileal conduit, Bricker diversion, mesh

Sources

1. Witjes JA, Bruins HM, Carrión A et al. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. [online]. Available from: Chyba! Odkaz není platný..

2. Goffioul L, Bonnet P, Waltregny D et al. Parastomal hernia after radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion: a narrative review. Acta Chir Belg 2021; 121(6): 373– 379. doi: 10.1080/ 00015458.2021.1987617.

3. Śmietański M, Szczepkowski M, Alexandre JA et al. European Hernia Society classification of parastomal hernias. Hernia 2014; 18(1): 1– 6. doi: 10.1007/ s10029-013-1162-z.

4. Liu NW, Hackney JT, Gellhaus PT et al. Incidence and risk factors of parastomal hernia in patients undergoing radical cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion. J Urol 2014; 191(5): 1313– 1318. doi: 10.1016/ j.juro.2013.11.104.

5. Liedberg F, Kollberg P, Allerbo M et al. Preventing Parastomal hernia after ileal conduit by the use of a prophylactic mesh: a randomised study. Eur Urol 2020; 78(5): 757– 763. doi: 10.1016/ j.eururo.2020.07.033.

6. Antoniou SA, Agresta F, Garcia Alamino JM et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias. Hernia 2018; 22(1): 183– 198. doi: 10.1007/ s10029-017-1697-5.

7. Styrke J, Johansson M, Granåsen G et al. Parastomal hernia after ileal conduit with a prophylactic mesh: a 10 year consecutive case series. Scand J Urol 2015; 49(4): 308– 312. doi: 10.3109/ 21681805.2015.1005664.

8. Donahue TF, Cha EK, Bochner BH. Rationale and early experience with prophylactic placement of mesh to prevent parastomal hernia formation after ileal conduit urinary diversion and cystectomy for bladder cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2016; 17(2): 9. doi: 10.1007/ s11934-015-0565-z.

9. Atwater BL, Rezaee ME, Seigne JD. Prophylactic parastomal mesh sublay at the time of ileal conduit: surgical technique. Urology 2022; 169: 269– 271. doi: 10.1016/ j.urology.2022.07.022.

10. Louda M, Navrátil P, Šachová Š et al. Prophylactic surgical mesh placement as a prevention of parastomal hernia in open radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion – pilot study. Rozhl Chir 2024; 103(3): 91– 95. doi: 10.33699/ PIS.2024.103.3.91-95.

11. Djaladat H, Ghoreifi A, Tejura T et al. Prophylactic use of biologic mesh in ileal conduit (PUBMIC): a randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2024; 211(6): 743– 753. doi: 10.1097/ JU.0000000000003902.

12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLOS Med 2021; 18(3): e1003583. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1003583.

13. Jänes A, Weisby L, Israelsson LA. Parastomal hernia: clinical and radiological definitions. Hernia 2011; 15(2): 189– 192. doi: 10.1007/ s10029-010-0769-6.

14. Narang SK, Alam NN, Campain NJ et al. Parastomal hernia following cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: a systematic review. Hernia 2017; 21(2): 163– 175. doi: 10.1007/ s10029-016-1561-z.

15. Hansson BM, Slater NJ, van der Velden AS et al. Surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg 2012; 255(4): 685– 695. doi: 10.1097/ SLA.0b013e31824b44b1.

16. Mäkäräinen-Uhlbäck E, Vironen J, Falenius V et al. Parastomal hernia: a retrospective nationwide cohort study comparing different techniques with long-term follow-up. World J Surg 2021; 45(6): 1742– 1749. doi: 10.1007/ s00268-021-05990-z.

17. Odensten C, Strigård K, Dahlberg M et al. Parastomal hernia repair; seldom performed and seldom reported: results from a nationwide survey. Scand J Surg 2020; 109(2): 96– 101. doi: 10.1177/ 1457496918818984.

18. Saha S, Gerdtham U, Bläckberg M et al. Cost effectiveness of the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia after urinary diversion with an ileal conduit. Eur Urol Open Sci 2022; 40: 9– 15. doi: 10.1016/ j.euros.2022.03.011.

19. Kanabolo DL, Park S. Prophylactic mesh placement with ileal conduit: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Urology 2023; 177: 197– 203. doi: 10.1016/ j.urology.2023.03.041.