Paasch Christoph, Kalmykov Egan Leonidovich, Lorenz Ralph, Neveling Nele, Mantke Rene
Department of Surgery, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, Brandenburg, Germany.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, Brandenburg, Germany.
Front Surg. 2024 Nov 29;11:1479870. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1479870. eCollection 2024.
Prophylactic mesh placement when creating a permanent colostomy was recommended by the 2017 European Hernia Society guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias (GPTPH2017). The extent of this recommendation is under debate based on the long-term data from clinical trials. Our aim was to conduct a survey of surgeons revealing perspectives and concerns regarding GPTPH2017 and to discuss their concerns.
From January 2023 to September 2023 a survey among surgeons of Germany, Switzerland and Austria was conducted. The questionnaire addressed demographic data of the participants, information on work experience/location, number of elective permanent colo- and ileostomies, and opinions on the recommendation of GPTPH2017 for prophylactic mesh placement.
A total of 172 surgeons from Germany, Austria and Switzerland answered the questionnaire and 59 of them stated professional experience of 20-30 years. Most of the surgeons ( = 51, 31.3%) worked in a primary care hospital. A total of 112 participants were familiar with the GPTPH2017. Sixty-five surgeons (40%) stated that they never conduct a prophylactic mesh placement when creating an elective permanent colostomy (rarely, = 44 (26.7%). Seven participants always place a mesh (4.2%, missing data: 7). Main concerns regarding prophylactic mesh placement was the concern of surgeons about wound infection ( = 107, 67.7%) and lack of evidence ( = 65, 41.1%). For some participants the GPTPH2017 is seen to be industry-driven with low evidence, too old and leading to overtreatment.
The main reason for not placing a prophylactic mesh when conducting a permanent colostomy was the risk of wound infection.
2017年欧洲疝学会关于预防和治疗造口旁疝的指南(GPTPH2017)建议在进行永久性结肠造口术时预防性放置补片。基于临床试验的长期数据,这一建议的适用范围存在争议。我们的目的是对外科医生进行一项调查,以了解他们对GPTPH2017的看法和担忧,并讨论他们的担忧。
2023年1月至2023年9月,对德国、瑞士和奥地利的外科医生进行了一项调查。问卷涉及参与者的人口统计学数据、工作经验/地点信息、择期永久性结肠造口术和回肠造口术的数量,以及对GPTPH2017关于预防性放置补片建议的意见。
来自德国、奥地利和瑞士的172名外科医生回答了问卷,其中59人表示有20至30年的专业经验。大多数外科医生(n = 51,31.3%)在基层医院工作。共有112名参与者熟悉GPTPH2017。65名外科医生(40%)表示,他们在进行择期永久性结肠造口术时从不进行预防性补片放置(很少进行,n = 44,26.7%)。7名参与者总是放置补片(4.2%,缺失数据:7)。关于预防性补片放置的主要担忧是外科医生担心伤口感染(n = 107, 67.7%)和缺乏证据(n = 65, 41.1%)。对于一些参与者来说,GPTPH2017被认为是由行业驱动的,证据不足,过于陈旧,会导致过度治疗。
进行永久性结肠造口术时不放置预防性补片的主要原因是伤口感染的风险。