Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site (ROCSS): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) Collaborative and West Midlands Research Collaborative

Abstract

Background: Closure of an abdominal stoma, a common elective operation, is associated with frequent complications; one of the commonest and impactful is incisional hernia formation. We aimed to investigate whether biological mesh (collagen tissue matrix) can safely reduce the incidence of incisional hernias at the stoma closure site.

Methods: In this randomised controlled trial (ROCSS) done in 37 hospitals across three European countries (35 UK, one Denmark, one Netherlands), patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure were randomly assigned using a computer-based algorithm in a 1:1 ratio to either biological mesh reinforcement or closure with sutures alone (control). Training in the novel technique was standardised across hospitals. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of clinically detectable hernia 2 years after randomisation (intention to treat). A sample size of 790 patients was required to identify a 40% reduction (25% to 15%), with 90% power (15% drop-out rate). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02238964.

Findings: Between Nov 28, 2012, and Nov 11, 2015, of 1286 screened patients, 790 were randomly assigned. 394 (50%) patients were randomly assigned to mesh closure and 396 (50%) to standard closure. In the mesh group, 373 (95%) of 394 patients successfully received mesh and in the control group, three patients received mesh. The clinically detectable hernia rate, the primary outcome, at 2 years was 12% (39 of 323) in the mesh group and 20% (64 of 327) in the control group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·43-0·90; p=0·012). In 455 patients for whom 1 year postoperative CT scans were available, there was a lower radiologically defined hernia rate in mesh versus control groups (20 [9%] of 229 vs 47 [21%] of 226, adjusted RR 0·42, 95% CI 0·26-0·69; p<0·001). There was also a reduction in symptomatic hernia (16%, 52 of 329 vs 19%, 64 of 331; adjusted relative risk 0·83, 0·60-1·16; p=0·29) and surgical reintervention (12%, 42 of 344 vs 16%, 54 of 346: adjusted relative risk 0·78, 0·54-1·13; p=0·19) at 2 years, but this result did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences were seen in wound infection rate, seroma rate, quality of life, pain scores, or serious adverse events.

Interpretation: Reinforcement of the abdominal wall with a biological mesh at the time of stoma closure reduced clinically detectable incisional hernia within 24 months of surgery and with an acceptable safety profile. The results of this study support the use of biological mesh in stoma closure site reinforcement to reduce the early formation of incisional hernias.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research Research for Patient Benefit and Allergan.

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure
Figure
Trial profile *For detailed reasons, see appendix p 3. †For detailed reasons, see appendix p 4.

References

    1. NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics. 2019.
    1. Doussot A, Abo-Alhassan F, Derbal S. Indications and outcomes of a cross-linked porcine dermal collagen mesh (permacol) for complex abdominal wall reconstruction: a multicenter audit. World J Surg. 2019;43:791–797.
    1. Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Futaba K. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure. World J Surg. 2012;36:973–983.
    1. Bhangu A, Fletcher L, Kingdon S, Smith E, Nepogodiev D, Janjua U. A clinical and radiological assessment of incisional hernias following closure of temporary stomas. Surgeon. 2012;10:321–325.
    1. Rosen MJ, Bauer JJ, Harmaty M. Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of the recurrence, surgical site infection, and quality of life after contaminated ventral hernia repair using biosynthetic absorbable mesh: the COBRA study. Ann Surg. 2017;265:205–211.
    1. Bhangu A, Fitzgerald JE, Singh P, Battersby N, Marriott P, Pinkney T. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh placement for prevention of incisional hernia following midline laparotomy. Hernia. 2013;17:445–455.
    1. Borab ZM, Shakir S, Lanni MA. Does prophylactic mesh placement in elective, midline laparotomy reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2017;161:1149–1163.
    1. Bondre IL, Holihan JL, Askenasy EP. Suture, synthetic, or biologic in contaminated ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res. 2016;200:488–494.
    1. Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, Awad SS, Denoto G, 3rd, Butler CE. Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: the RICH Study. Surgery. 2012;152:498–505.
    1. Kamarajah SK, Chapman SJ, Glasbey J. Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure. BJS Open. 2018;2:371–380.
    1. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–1112.
    1. Bhangu A, Futaba K, Patel A, Pinkney T, Morton D. Reinforcement of closure of stoma site using a biological mesh. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18:305–308.
    1. Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) Collaborative and the West Midlands Research Collaborative Feasibility study from a randomized controlled trial of standard closure of a stoma site vs biological mesh reinforcement. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18:889–896.
    1. Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) Collaborative and the West Midlands Research Collaborative Randomized controlled trial of standard closure of a stoma site vs biological mesh reinforcement: study protocol of the ROCSS trial. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20:O46–O54.
    1. DREAMS Trial Collaborators and West Midlands Research Collaborative Dexamethasone versus standard treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting in gastrointestinal surgery: randomised controlled trial (DREAMS Trial) BMJ. 2017;357
    1. Pinkney TD, Calvert M, Bartlett DC. Impact of wound edge protection devices on surgical site infection after laparotomy: multicentre randomised controlled trial (ROSSINI trial) BMJ. 2013;347
    1. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004;240:578–583.
    1. Krpata DM, Schmotzer BJ, Flocke S. Design and initial implementation of HerQLes: a hernia-related quality-of-life survey to assess abdominal wall function. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:635–642.
    1. Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:1254–1260.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다