Abstract:BACKGROUND: Some patients receiving defunctioning stomas will never undergo stoma reversal, but it is difficult to preoperatively predict which patients will be affected. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to identify the risk factors associated with nonclosure of temporary stomas after sphincter-preserving low anterior resection for rectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library databases for all of the studies analyzing risk factors for nonclosure of defunctioning stomas. STUDY SELECTION: We only included articles published in English in this meta-analysis. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) original article with extractable data, 2) studies including only defunctioning stomas created after low anterior resection for rectal cancer, 3) studies with nonclosure rather than delayed closure as the main end point, and 4) studies analyzing risk factors for nonclosure. INTERVENTION: Defunctioning stomas were created after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stoma nonclosure was the only end point, and it included nonclosure and permanent stoma creation after primary stoma closure. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess methodologic quality of the studies, and risk ratios and 95% CIs were used to assess risk factors. RESULTS: Ten studies with 8568 patients were included. The nonclosure rate was 19% (95% CI, 13%-24%; p < 0.001; I-2=96.2%). Three demographic factors were significantly associated with nonclosure: older age (risk ratio= 1.50 (95% CI, 1.12-2.02); p = 0.007; I-2= 39.3%), ASA score >2 (risk ratio = 1.66 (95% CI, 1.51-1.83); p < 0.001; I-2= 0%), and comorbidities (risk ratio = 1.58 (95% CI, 1.29-1.95); p < 0.001; I-2= 52.6%). Surgical complications (risk ratio = 1.89 (95% CI, 1.48-2.41); p < 0.001; I-2= 29.7%), postoperative anastomotic leakage (risk ratio = 3.39 (95% CI, 2.41-4.75); p < 0.001; I-2= 53.0%), stage IV tumor (risk ratio = 2.96 (95% CI, 1.73-5.09); p < 0.001; I-2= 88.1%), and local recurrence (risk ratio = 2.84 (95% CI, 2.11-3.83); p < 0.001; I-2= 6.8%) were strong clinical risk factors for nonclosure. Open surgery (risk ratio = 1.47 (95% CI, 1.01-2.15); p = 0.044; I-2= 63.6%) showed a borderline significant association with nonclosure. LIMITATIONS: Data on some risk factors could not be pooled because of the low number of studies. There was conspicuous heterogeneity between the included studies, so the pooled data were not absolutely free of exaggeration or influence. CONCLUSIONS: Older age, ASA score >2, comorbidities, open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, stage IV tumor, and local recurrence are risk factors for nonclosure of defunctioning stomas after low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer, whereas tumor height, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy are not. Patients with these risk factors should be informed preoperatively of the possibility of nonreversal, and joint decision-making is preferred.

Reversal of stoma with biosynthetic mesh fascial reinforcement: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Prophylactic Mesh Application During Colostomy to Prevent Parastomal Hernia: A Meta-Analysis

PHaLIR: prevent hernia after loop ileostomy reversal-a study protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter study

Effects of Different Mesh Materials on Complications after Prophylactic Placement for Stoma Formation: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Synthetic mesh versus biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia after loop-ileostomy closure: a randomized feasibility trial

Mesh reinforcement for the prevention of incisional hernia formation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Safety and efficacy of prophylactic resorbable biosynthetic mesh in loop-ileostomy reversal: a case–control study

Long-term Cost-Effectiveness of Insertion of a Biological Mesh During Stoma-Site Closure: 5-8-year Follow-Up of the ROCSS Randomized Controlled Trial

Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure

Open Retromuscular Sugarbaker vs Keyhole Mesh Placement for Parastomal Hernia Repair

Prophylactic Mesh Placement in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Elective Laparotomy: A Systematic Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of ventral hernia: biologic versus synthetic mesh

Reinforced tissue matrix to strengthen the abdominal wall following reversal of temporary ostomies or to treat incisional hernias

Infectious Complications After Modified Purse-String Stoma Closure

Prophylactic Mesh-related Reoperations and Mesh-related Problems During Subsequent Relaparotomies: Long-term Results From the PRIMA Trial

Parastomal Hernia Prevention Using Funnel-Shaped Intra-Abdominal Mesh Compared to No Mesh: The Chimney Randomized Clinical Trial

Risk Factors Associated With Nonclosure of Defunctioning Stomas After Sphincter-Preserving Low Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

The Comparison of Lightweight Mesh and Standard Mesh in Incisional Hernia Repair with the Open Sublay Technique: the Results of a Meta-Analysis.

Efficacy and safety of mesh non-fixation in patients undergoing laparo-endoscopic repair of groin hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Could robotic‐assisted surgery reduce mesh‐related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature

Are Surgeons Going to Be Left Holding the Bag? Incisional Hernia Repair and Intra-Peritoneal Non-Absorbable Mesh Implant Complications