Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics, surgical details and postoperative outcomes of included full-text articles

From: Parastomal hernias after cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: surgical treatment and the use of prophylactic mesh: a systematic review

Study characteristics*

Surgical details

Postoperative outcomes*

Author & Year

Country

Study period

Sample size

Mean age

Male (%)

Surgical technique

Appr

Mesh repair

Mesh position

Mesh type

Post-OP compl. rate

CD Grade

 > II

Rec. rate

Length of follow-up

Type of follow-up

Length of stay

30-day re-operation rate

Franks 2001

USA

NR

6

(65–83)

NR

Keyhole

Open

Yes

Onlay

small pore, heavy weight

NR

NR

0%

26 m (2–42)

Clinical + CT

2.5 d (2–5)

0%

Helal 1997

USA

1990–1996

19

64.3(41–79)

26%

Re- location

Open

Yes (†)

Onlay

small pore, heavy weight

NR

NR

11%

23.4 ± 15.25 m

NR

NR

NR

Ho 2004

UK

1982–2001

15

(34–82)

47%

Onlay mesh repair (‡)

Open

Yes

Onlay

small pore, heavy weight

13%

13%

7%

15 m (1–72)

NR

4 d (2–14)

13%

Lopez-Cano 2021

Spain

2012–2018

20

71 (SD:9.07)

85,0%

Onlay mesh repair

Open (16)

Lap. (4)

Yes

Onlay

synthetic, non- absorbable

45.0%

10.0%

NR

6 m

NR

NR

NR

Mäkäräinen- Uhlbäck** 2021

Finland

2007–2017

18 (KH)

70 ± 9

44,4%

Keyhole

Open (7)

Lap. (11)

Yes

NR

NR

33.3%

11.1%

22.2%

49 m ± 34

NR

17.8 ± 50.1 days

5.6%

10 (SB)

77 ± 6

60,0%

Sugar- baker

Open (2)

Lap. (8)

Yes

NR

NR

10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

27 m ± 21

NR

6.3 ± 3.7 days

0.0%

Rodriguez- Faba 2011

Spain

2000–2006

19

63 (49–79)

84%

Re- location

Open

Yes (§)

Intra- peritoneal

large pore, light weight

26%

5%

21%

55 m

NR

7 d(1–25)

5%

Safadi 2004

USA

1998–2001

5

66 (54–77)

100%

Keyhole

Lap

Yes

Intra- peritoneal

ePTFE

0%

0%

80%

11.6 m (6–10)

Clinical

4.4 d (2–6)

0%

Tully 2019

Germany

2009–2015

40

NR

63%

3D funnel shape

Open

Yes

Intra- peritoneal

large pore, light weight

3%

3%

7%

29 m (IQR 16–63)

Clinical + US

NR

0%

  1. *Numbers within brackets indicate ranges, unless otherwise stated
  2. †Mesh was used at the previous stoma site for 2 patients with large defects
  3. ‡A lateral approach was used, where only the lateral part of the parastomal hernia was covered with mesh
  4. §Mesh was used at previous stoma site
  5. **National cohort
  6. NR not reported, lap. laparoscopic, compl. complication, rec. recurrence, m months, IQR interquartile range, CT computed-tomography scan, US ultrasonography, CD Clavien-Dindo