Surgeons' opinions and concerns regarding prophylactic mesh placement when conducting a permanent ileo- and colostomy A survey among 172 surgeons in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2024.1479870
Christoph Paasch, Egan Leonidovich Kalmykov, Ralph Lorenz, Nele Neveling, Rene Mantke
{"title":"Surgeons' opinions and concerns regarding prophylactic mesh placement when conducting a permanent ileo- and colostomy A survey among 172 surgeons in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.","authors":"Christoph Paasch, Egan Leonidovich Kalmykov, Ralph Lorenz, Nele Neveling, Rene Mantke","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1479870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (<i>n</i> = 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, <i>n</i> = 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 (<i>n</i> = 107, 67.7%) and lack of evidence (<i>n</i> = 65, 41.1%). For some participants the GPTPH2017 is seen to be industry-driven with low evidence, too old and leading to overtreatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The main reason for not placing a prophylactic mesh when conducting a permanent colostomy was the risk of wound infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"11 ","pages":"1479870"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11638169/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1479870","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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 (n = 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, n = 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 (n = 107, 67.7%) and lack of evidence (n = 65, 41.1%). For some participants the GPTPH2017 is seen to be industry-driven with low evidence, too old and leading to overtreatment.

Conclusions: The main reason for not placing a prophylactic mesh when conducting a permanent colostomy was the risk of wound infection.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对德国、瑞士和奥地利 172 名外科医生进行的一项调查。
背景:2017年欧洲疝学会关于预防和治疗造口旁疝的指南(GPTPH2017)推荐在创建永久性结肠造口时预防性放置补片。基于临床试验的长期数据,这一建议的适用范围仍存在争议。我们的目的是对外科医生进行调查,揭示对GPTPH2017的看法和担忧,并讨论他们的担忧。方法:于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调查。调查问卷涉及参与者的人口统计数据、工作经验/地点信息、选择性永久性结肠和回肠造口次数,以及对GPTPH2017建议预防性补片放置的意见。结果:172名来自德国、奥地利和瑞士的外科医生接受了问卷调查,其中59名外科医生的从业经验为20-30年。大多数外科医生(51名,31.3%)在初级保健医院工作。共有112名参与者熟悉GPTPH2017。65名外科医生(40%)表示,他们在进行选择性永久性结肠造口时从未进行过预防性补片放置(很少,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被认为是行业驱动的,证据不足,太老,导致过度治疗。结论: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有伤口感染的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Innovations and challenges in surgical education. Lumbar spinal stenosis exacerbated by spinal epidural lipomatosis: a case report. Retrospective cohort study: stereotactic aspiration of necrotic tissue versus conservative medical management for malignant MCA infarction. Successful simultaneous laparoscopic repair of concurrent diaphragmatic eventration, hiatal hernia, and recurrent inguinal hernia in a single procedure: a case report. Case Report: Interparietal hernia due to posterior rectus sheath dehiscence following a Rives-Stoppa repair for a ventral hernia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1