State of the art management of parastomal hernias at the hernia centers

Czech version

Authors: J. Škach ; V. Blecher; P. Biath
Authors‘ workplace: Kýlní centrum, Chirurgické oddělení, Krajská nemocnice Liberec, a. s.
Published in: Rozhl. Chir., 2026, roč. 105, č. 7, s. 329-326.
Category: Review
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccrvch2026329

Overview

Parastomal hernia is the most common complication after intestinal stoma creation, with an incidence of up to 50%. In up to 50% of cases, there is a known coincidence with an incisional hernia after laparotomy. Parastomal hernias should be treated using one of the established basic methods (keyhole, funnel mesh, Sugarbaker), or one of the advanced techniques (HyPER, Pauli, sandwich mesh) in the case of complex hernias or redo procedures. Primary suture appears to be completely inadequate and should not be practically used. Within the framework of an elective procedure, reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract should be prioritized. Replacing of the stoma should only be used exceptionally for altering another section of the abdominal wall and should then be performed using a prophylactic mesh.

When suitable, it is to perform our “Zorro” abdominoplasty or panniculectomy.

Complex parastomal hernias should be managed similarly to all complex hernias in hernia centers, taking into account the applicable European Hernia Society (EHS) guidelines. This can minimize recurrence and postoperative morbidity. Close cooperation with (not only) colorectal surgeons during the primary procedure appears to be the key (position and closure of laparotomy, placement of stoma, prophylactic mesh). The siphon stoma output seems to be a crucial moment for the long-term uncomplicated function of the intestinal diversion. When performing a permanent terminal colostomy, a non-absorbable prophylactic mesh should be used according to EHS guidelines.

Keywords:

Hernia – hernioplasty – ostomy

Sources

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. deSmet GH, Lambrichts DP, van den Hoek S et al. Comparison of different modalities for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; 35 (2): 199–212. doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03499-5.

4. O’Neill CH, Borrazzo EC, Hyman NH. Parastomal hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 2015; 19 (4): 766–769. doi: 10.1007/s11605-014-2717-8.

5. Moreno-Matias J, Serra-Aracil X, Darnell-Martin A et al. The prevalence of parastomal hernia after formation of an end colostomy. a new clinico--radiological classification. Colorectal Dis 2009; 11 (2): 173–177. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01564.x.

6. Hotouras A, Murphy J, Power N et al. Radiological incidence of parastomal herniation in cancer patients with permanent colostomy: what is the ideal size of the surgical aperture? Int J Surg 2013; 11 (5): 425–427. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.03.010.

7. Colvin J, Rosenblatt S. Surgical management of parastomal hernias. Surg Clin N Am 2018; 98 (3): 577–592. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2018.01.010.

8. Styliński R, Alzubedi A, Rudzki S. Parastomal hernia –⁠ current knowledge and treatment. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2018; 13 (1): 1–8. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2018.72685.

9. Glasgow SC, Dharmarajan S. Parastomal hernia: avoidance and treatment in the 21st century. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2016; 29 (3): 277–284. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1584506.

10. Tivenius M, Näsvall P, Sandblom G. Parastomal hernias causing symptoms or requiring surgical repair after colorectal cancer surgery –⁠ a national population--based cohort study. Int J ColorectalDis 2019; 34 (7): 1267–1272. doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03292-4.

11. Berger D, Bientzle M. Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias: a single surgeon‘s experience in 66 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50 (10): 1668–1673. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9028-z.

12. Szczepkowski M, Skoneczny P, Przywózka A et al. New minimally invasive technique of parastomal hernia repair –⁠ methods and review. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2015; 10 (1): 1–7. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2015.50052.

13. Rosin JD, Bonardi RA. Paracolostomy hernia repair with marlex mesh: a new technique. Dis Colon Rectum 1977; 20 (4): 299–302. doi: 10.1007/BF02586428.

14. Rubin MS, Schoetz DJ, Matthews JB. Parastomal hernia. is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg 1994; 129 (4): 413–418. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1994. 01420280091011.

15. Ripoche J, Basurko C, Fabbro-Perray P et al. Parastomal hernia. a study of the french federation of ostomy patients. J Visc Surg 2011; 148 (6): e435–e441. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2011.10.006.

16. Olmi S, Oldani A, Uccelli M et al. Laparoscopic modified keyhole technique with coated polyester mesh for treatment of parastomal hernia: measures for improving the outcome. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2019; 29 (5): 681–684. doi: 10.1089/lap.2018.0730.

17. McLemore EC, Harold KL, Efron JE et al. Parastomal hernia: short-term outcome after laparoscopic and conventional repairs. Surg Innov 2007; 14 (3): 199–204. doi: 10.1177/1553350607307275.

18. Levy S, Plymale MA, Miller MT et al.Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: no different than a laparoscopic ventral hernia repair? Surg Endosc 2016; 30 (4): 1542–1546. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4370-z.

19. Hansson BM, van Nieuwenhoven EJ, Bleichrodt RP. Promising new technique in the repair of parastomal hernia. Surg Endosc 2003; 17 (11): 1789–1791. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-9249-0.

20. Hansson BM, Bleichrodt RP, de Hingh IH. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a keyhole technique results in a high recurrence rate. Surg Endosc 2009; 23 (7): 1456–1459. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0253-x.

21. Mizrahi H, Bhattacharya P, Parker MC.Laparoscopic slit mesh repair of parastomal hernia using a designated mesh: long-term results. Surg Endosc 2012; 26 (1): 267–270. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1866-z.

22. Yan Z, Zhang H, Zhan H et al. The modified laparoscopic keyhole parastomal hernia repair with in situ re-ostomy has low recurrence rate. Hernia 2018; 22 (4): 685–690. doi: 10.1007/s10029-018-1789-x.

23. Fischer I, Wundsam H, Mitteregger M et al. Parastomal hernia repair with a 3d funnel intraperitoneal mesh device and same-sided stoma relocation: results of 56 cases. World J Surg 2017; 41 (12): 3212–3217. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-4130-4.

24. Sugarbaker PH. Peritoneal approach to prosthetic mesh repair of paraostomy hernias. Ann Surg 1985; 201 (3): 344–346. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198503000-00015.

25. Voitk A. Simple technique for laparoscopic paracolostomy hernia repair. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43 (10): 1451–1453. doi: 10.1007/BF02236646.

26. Mancini GJ, McClusky DA, Khaitan L et al. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a nonslit mesh technique. Surg Endosc 2007; 21 (9): 1487–1491. doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9419-1.

27. Asif A, Ruiz M, Yetasook A et al. Laparoscopic modified sugarbaker technique results in superior recurrence rate. Surg Endosc 2012; 26 (12): 3430–3434. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2358-5.

28. Rege S, Singh A, Rewatkar A et al. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: a modified technique of mesh placement in sugarbaker procedure. J Minim Access Surg 2019; 15 (3): 224–228. doi: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_17_18.

29. LeBlanc KA, Bellanger DE, Whitaker JM et al. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair. Hernia 2005; 9 (2): 140–144. doi: 10.1007/s10029-004-0295-5.

30. Huang DY, Pan L, Chen QL et al. Modified laparoscopic sugarbaker repair of parastomal hernia with a three--point anchoring technique. World J Clin Cases 2018; 6 (14): 759–766. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i14.759.

31. Hansson BM, Morales-Conde S, Mussack T et al. The laparoscopic modified sugarbaker technique is safe and has a low recurrence rate: a multicenter cohort study. Surg Endosc 2013; 27 (2): 494–500. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2464-4.

32. Oma E, Pilsgaard B, Jorgensen LN. Clinical outcomes after parastomal hernia repair with a polyester monofilament composite mesh: a cohort study of 79 consecutive patients. Hernia 2018; 22 (2): 371–377. doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1721-9.

33. Rajapandian S, Jankar SV, Kakkilaya H et al. Modified laparoscopic keyhole plus repair to manage a parastomal hernia: a single-center experience. Asian J Endosc Surg 2020; 13 (1): 77–82. doi: 10.1111/ases.12686.

34. Zhang H, Xie JM, Miao JQ et al. Hybrid approaches for complex parastomal hernia repair. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2016; 26 (1): 72–73.

35. Hashida H, Kumata Y, Kondo M et al. Analysis of the Outcome of Laparoscopic Repair for Parastomal Hernia Using the Sandwich Technique. Indian J Surg 2021; 83 : 542–546. doi: 10.1007/s12262-020-02316-6.

36. Bertoglio C, Morini L, Maspero M et al. From keyhole to sandwich: change in laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias at a single centre. Surg Endosc 2021; 35 (4): 1863–1871. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07589-2.

37. Pauli EM, Juza RM, Winder JS. How I do it: novel parastomal herniorrhaphy utilizing transversus abdominis release. Hernia 2016; 20 (4): 547–552. doi: 10.1007/s10029-016-1489-3.

38. Lambrecht JR. Endoscopic preperitoneal parastomal hernia repair (epauli repair): an observational study. Surg Endosc 2021; 35 (4): 1903–1907. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08192-1.

39. DeAsis FJ, Lapin B, Gitelis ME et al. Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21 (28): 8670–8677. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i28.8670.

40. Wara P, Andersen LM. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernia using a bilayer mesh with a slit. Surg Endosc 2011; 25 (2): 526–530. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1205-9.

41. Fleming AM, Phillips AL, Drake JA et al. Sugarbaker versus keyhole repair for parastomal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 27 (3): 573–584. doi: 10.1007/s11605-022-05412-y.

42. Gameza VA, Bell Lybecker M, Wara P. Laparoscopic keyhole versus sugarbaker repair in parastomal hernia: a long--term case-controlled prospective study of consecutive patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2020; 30 (7): 783–789. doi: 10.1089/lap.2020.0074.

43. 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.

44. Köhler G, Mayer F, Wundsam H et al. Changes in the surgical management of parastomal hernias over 15 years: results of 135 cases. World J Surg 2015; 39 (11): 2795–2804. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3187-1.

45. Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Petro CC et al. Biologic vs synthetic mesh for single--stage repair of contaminated ventral hernias: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2022; 157 (4): 293–301. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.6902.

46. McKechnie T, Lee J, Lee Y et al. Prophylactic mesh for prevention of parastomal hernia following end colostomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg 2022; 26 (2): 486–502. doi: 10.1007/s11605-021-05174-z.

47. Serra-Aracil X, Bombardo-Junca J, Moreno-Matias J et al. Randomized, controlled, prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 2009; 249 (4): 583–587. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819ec809.

48. Wijeyekoon SP, Gurusamy K, El-Gendy K et al. Prevention of parastomal herniation with biologic/composite prosthetic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 211 (5): 637–645. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.06.111.

49. Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H et al. Risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrence after parastomal hernia repair: a nationwide study. Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56 (11): 1265–1272. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182a0e6e2.

50. Muysoms EE, Hauters PJ, Van Nieuwenhove Y et al. Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias: a multi-centreretrospective review and shift in technique. Acta Chir Belg 2008; 108 (4): 400–404. doi: 10.1080/00015458.2008. 11680249.

51. Luan L, Liu Q, Cui C et al. Surgical treatment strategy for recurrent parastomal hernia: experiences from 17 cases. Front Surg 2022; 9 (9): 928743. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.928743.

52. DeAsis FJ, Linn JG, Lapin B et al. Modified laparoscopic sugarbaker repair decreases recurrence rates of parastomal hernia. Surgery 2015; 158 (4): 954–959. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.04.052.

53. Jani K. Laparoscopic paracolostomy hernia repair: a retrospective case series at a tertiary care center. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2010; 20 (6): 395–398. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182009ae7.

54. Pastor DM, Pauli EM, Koltun WA et al. Parastomal hernia repair: a single center experience. JSLS 2009; 13 (2): 170–175.

55. Luo J, Singh D, Zhang F et al. Comparison of the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal routes for permanent colostomy: a meta--analysis with rcts and systematic review. World J Surg Oncol 2022; 20 (1): 82. doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02547-9.

56. 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.

57. Berger D, Bientzle M. Polyvinylidene fluoride: a suitable mesh material for laparoscopic incisional and parastomal hernia repair! a prospective, observational study with 344 patients. Hernia 2009; 13 (2): 167–172. doi: 10.1007/s10029-008-0435-4.

58. Suwa K, Ushigome T, Enomoto H et al. Feasibility of using a tailored mesh in laparoscopic sugarbaker parastomal hernia repair. Asian J Endosc Surg 2022; 15 (2): 344–351. doi: 10.1111/ases.13023.

59. Škach J, Šlamborová M, Blecher V et al. Současný pohled na protézy v herniologii (kýlní síťky) –⁠ klasifikace, indikace, výhody a nevýhody jednotlivých materiálů, komplikace. Rozhl Chir 2019; 98 (3): 85–99.

60. Miller BT, Krpata DM, Petro CC et al. Biologic vs synthetic mesh for parastomal hernia repair: post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Surg 2022; 235 (3): 401–409. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000275.