Skip to main content

Table 3 Study characteristics, surgical details and postoperative outcomes of literature on prophylactic mesh placement in primary radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion

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

General characteristics*

Surgical details*

Postoperative outcome*

Author & Year

Country

Study period

Study design

Sample size

Mean age

Male (%)

MIN- ORS

Tech- nique

Appr

Mesh position

Mesh type

Length of follow-up

Type of follow-up

PSH rate

Compl. rate

Mesh- related compl

Donahue 2016

USA

2013–2015

RS

33

NR

51.5%

5

Key-hole

Open

Retro-rectus

large pore, light weight

297 days

Clinical + CT

Clin: 3%

CT: 18.2%

NR

0.0%

Liedberg 2020

Sweden

2012–2017

RCT

C:124 M:118

C: 71 M: 71

C: 79%

M: 77%

21

Key-hole

Open

Retro-rectus

large pore, light weight

3 years

Clinical + CT

C: 29.3%

M: 10.2%

C: 41.5%M: 43.1%

NR

Styrke 2015

Sweden

2003–2012

RS

58

69 ± 7

59.0%

10

Key-hole

Open

Retro-rectus

large pore, light weight

32mon

Clinical + CT

14.0%

NR

0.0%

Tenzel 2018

USA

2010–2017

RS

C: 20 M: 18

68

74.0%

10

Key-hole

Rob

Retro-rectus

synthetic resorbable/bio

C: 21mon M: 11mon

CT

C: 5%

M: 0%

NR

0.0%

Jian 2021 (CA)

USA

2019–2021

RS

38

NR

NR

NA

Key-hole

Rob

Retro-rectus

medium weight, mono-filament

5 months (n = 21)

CT (n = 21)

5.0%

NR

0.0%

  1. *: numbers within brackets indicate ranges, unless otherwise stated
  2. CA conference abstract, C control (no mesh), M mesh, RS retrospective PS prospective, NC nationwide cohort, NR not reported, m months, CT Computed-Tomography scan, SD standard deviation, US ultrasonography