Mäkäräinen-Uhlbäck, E., Vironen, J., Vaarala, M. et al. Keyhole versus Sugarbaker techniques in parastomal hernia repair following ileal conduit urinary diversion: a retrospective nationwide cohort study. BMC Surg 21, 231 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-021-01228-w
Keyhole versus Sugarbaker techniques in parastomal hernia repair following ileal conduit urinary diversion : a retrospective nationwide cohort study
|Author:||Mäkäräinen-Uhlbäck, Elisa1; Vironen, Jaana2; Vaarala, Markku1;|
1Division of Surgery, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
2Abdominal Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
3Division of Surgery, Gastroenterology, and Oncology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
4Division of Surgery, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti, Finland
5Division of Surgery, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
6Division of Surgery, Kanta-Häme Central Hospital, Hämeenlinna, Finland
7Division of Surgery, Central Finland Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland
8Division of Operative Care, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
9The Research Unit of Surgery, Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
|Online Access:||PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.7 MB)|
|Persistent link:|| http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe2021070641183
|Publish Date:|| 2021-07-06
Background: Previous research on parastomal hernia repair following ileal conduit urinary diversion is limited. This nationwide cohort study aims to present the results of keyhole and Sugarbaker techniques in parastomal hernia repair in the setting of ileal conduit urinary diversion.
Method: All patients in this cohort underwent primary elective parastomal hernia repair following ileal conduit urinary diversion in four university hospitals and one central hospital in Finland in 2007–2017. Retrospective clinical data were collected from patient registries to compare keyhole and Sugarbaker parastomal hernia repair techniques. The primary outcome was parastomal hernia recurrence during the follow-up from primary surgery to the last confirmed follow-up date of the patient. The secondary outcomes were reoperations during the follow-up and complication rate at 30 days’ follow-up.
Results: The results of 28 hernioplasties were evaluated. The overall parastomal hernia recurrence rate was 18%, the re-operation rate was 14%, and the complication rate was 14% during the median follow-up time of 30 (21–64) months. Recurrence rates were 22% (4/18) after keyhole repair and 10% (1/10) after Sugarbaker repair. Re-operation rates referred to keyhole repair were 22% and Sugarbaker repair 0% during follow-up. The majority of reoperations were indicated by recurrence. Complication rates were 17% after keyhole and 10% after Sugarbaker repair during the 30 days’ follow-up.
Conclusion: The results of parastomal hernia repair in the setting of ileal conduits are below optimal in this nationwide cohort comparing keyhole to Sugarbaker repair in elective parastomal hernia repair. Nonetheless, the Sugarbaker technique should be further studied to confirm the encouraging results of this cohort in terms of recurrence.
|Type of Publication:||
A1 Journal article – refereed
|Field of Science:||
3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
© The Author(s) 2021. 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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.