From the Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Holland, Chesney, Dossa, Acuna, Fleshner, Baxter); the Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Dossa, Acuna, Baxter); and the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Dossa, Acuna, Baxter).
Can J Surg. 2019 Dec 1;62(6):426-435. doi: 10.1503/cjs.019018.
The use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy procedures has been shown to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia. However, the degree to which the practice has been adopted clinically remains unknown. We conducted a study to evaluate the current opinions and practice patterns of Canadian and US colorectal surgeons with regard to the use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy.
Between May and July 2017, we conducted an internet-based survey of colorectal surgeons in Canada and the United States (selected at random). Using a questionnaire designed and tested for this study, we assessed the rate of mesh use, types of mesh and placement techniques, and perceived barriers and facilitators associated with the practice.
Forty-eight (51.6%) of 93 invited Canadian surgeons and 253 (16.6%) of 1521 invited US surgeons responded (overall response rate 18.6%). Of the 301 respondents, 32 (10.6%) were currently using mesh, 32 (10.6%) had previously used mesh, and 237 (78.7%) had never used mesh. Of 29 respondents currently using mesh, 12 (41.4%) used it only in selected patients; the majority used a sublay technique (20 [69.0%]) and biologic mesh (17 [58.6%]). Most respondents agreed that parastomal hernias are common and negatively affect quality of life; however, there remained concerns about evidence quality and the perceived risk associated with mesh among those who had never or had previously used mesh.
Prophylactic mesh placement remains relatively uncommon; when used, biologic mesh was the most common type. Many surgeons were not convinced of the safety or efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement.
预防性使用补片在结肠造口术后可降低造口旁疝的发生率。然而,目前临床应用的程度尚不清楚。我们进行了一项研究,以评估加拿大和美国结直肠外科医生对预防性使用补片的意见和实践模式。
2017 年 5 月至 7 月,我们对加拿大和美国的结直肠外科医生进行了一项基于互联网的调查(随机选择)。使用为此项研究设计和测试的问卷,我们评估了补片的使用率、补片类型和放置技术,以及与该实践相关的感知障碍和促进因素。
在 93 名受邀的加拿大外科医生中,有 48 名(51.6%)和在 1521 名受邀的美国外科医生中,有 253 名(16.6%)做出回应(总体回应率为 18.6%)。在 301 名回答者中,有 32 名(10.6%)正在使用补片,有 32 名(10.6%)曾使用过补片,有 237 名(78.7%)从未使用过补片。在 29 名正在使用补片的回答者中,有 12 名(41.4%)仅在特定患者中使用补片;大多数人使用了底层技术(20 名[69.0%])和生物补片(17 名[58.6%])。大多数回答者认为造口旁疝很常见,会对生活质量产生负面影响;然而,那些从未使用过补片或曾使用过补片的人仍然对补片的质量证据和潜在风险表示担忧。
预防性补片放置仍然相对少见;当使用时,生物补片是最常见的类型。许多外科医生对预防性补片放置的安全性和有效性没有信心。