Biologic vs Synthetic Mesh for Parastomal Hernia Repair: Post Hoc Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Parastomal hernias are often repaired with mesh to reduce recurrences, but the presence of an ostomy increases the wound class from clean to clean-contaminated/contaminated and makes the choice of mesh more controversial than in a strictly clean case. We aimed to compare the outcomes of biologic and synthetic mesh for parastomal hernia repair.

Study Design: This is a post hoc analysis of parastomal hernia repairs in a randomized trial comparing biologic and synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. Outcomes included rates of surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), reoperations, stoma/mesh-related adverse events, parastomal hernia recurrence rates (clinical, patient-reported, and radiographic) at 2 years, quality of life (EQ-5D, EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale, and Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey), and hospital costs up to 30 days.

Results: A total of 108 patients underwent parastomal hernia repair (57 biologic [53%] and 51 synthetic [47%]). Demographic and hernia characteristics were similar between the two groups. No significant differences in SSOPI rates or reoperations were observed between mesh types. Four mesh erosions into an ostomy requiring reoperations (2 biologic vs 2 synthetic) occurred. At 2 years, parastomal hernia recurrence rates were similar for biologic and synthetic mesh (17 [29.8%] vs 13 [25.5%], respectively; p = .77). Overall and hernia-related quality of life improved from baseline and were similar between the two groups at 2 years. Median total hospital cost and median mesh cost were higher for biologic compared with synthetic mesh.

Conclusion: Biologic and synthetic mesh have similar wound morbidity, reoperations, 2-year hernia recurrence rates, and quality of life in parastomal hernia repairs. Cost should be considered in mesh choice for parastomal hernia repairs.