Email this article Retroperitoneal end colostomy for prevention of parastomal hernia: single-center retrospective study
- Authors: Aleksantsev D.V.1, Peregorodieva S.S.1, Polynovskiy A.V.1, Belenkaya Y.V.1, Kaushanskiy V.B.2, Kuznetsova S.D.3, Mamedli Z.Z.1, Gordeev S.S.1,3,4
-
Affiliations:
- N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
- Kuban State Medical University
- Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
- Туumen State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
- Issue: Vol 16, No 2 (2026)
- Pages: 118-125
- Section: ORIGINAL REPORT
- Published: 20.06.2026
- URL: https://onco-surgery.info/jour/article/view/909
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17650/2949-5857-2026-16-2-118-125
- ID: 909
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Subscription or Fee Access
Abstract
Background. Retroperitoneal end colostomy creation is a safe and effective method of parastomal hernia (PH) prevention.
Aim. To investigate the rate of PH in patients after abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. To compare effects of retroperitoneal end colostomy created through laparoscopic and open accesses on PH prevention.
Materials and methods. In the single-center study, incidence of PH was retrospectively analyzed in 110 patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection of the rectum between January of 2018 and December of 2024 due to rectal cancer, persistent or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal after chemoradiation therapy. PH was diagnosed using computed tomography with independent evaluation by an expert 1 or more years after the surgery. Patient characteristics, PH incidence, rate and severity of postoperative complications were compared in the groups of laparoscopic and open surgeries.
Results. Median follow-up was 19.2 months in the group of extraperitoneal colostomy and 12.8 months in the group of transperitoneal colostomy. Statistically significant differences (р = 0.027) were found in the incidence of hernias 1 and more years after surgery in the laparoscopic surgery group: hernias developed in 5 (14.3 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 48–29.8) patients with extraperitoneal colostomy and in 10 (40 %; 95 % CI 21.1–61.2) patients with transperitoneal colostomy. There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events (р = 0.76). In the total group and group of open surgeries, no statistically significant differences were observed (р = 0.146): hernias developed in 10 (17.9 %; 95 % CI 8.8–30.5) patients with extraperitoneal colostomy and 16 (29.6 %; 95 % CI 17.9–42.4) patients with transperitoneal colostomy in the total group, in 5 (22.7 %; 95 % CI 8.3–45.4) patients with extraperitoneal stoma, and in 6 (20.7 %; 95 % CI 8.4–39.5) patients with transperitoneal stoma in the open surgery group.
Conclusion. The results of our study do not demonstrate benefits of extraperitoneal colostomy using open access. However, the results show safety and efficacy of retroperitoneal end colostomy creation in laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.
About the authors
D. V. Aleksantsev
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Author for correspondence.
Email: alexancev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6478-0005
Russian Federation, 24 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow, 115522
S. S. Peregorodieva
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: alexancev@gmail.com
Russian Federation, 24 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow, 115522
A. V. Polynovskiy
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: alexancev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1148-8051
Russian Federation, 24 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow, 115522
Y. V. Belenkaya
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: alexancev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2163-1752
Russian Federation, 24 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow, 115522
V. B. Kaushanskiy
Kuban State Medical University
Email: alexancev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7839-6410
Russian Federation, 4 Mitrofan Sedina St., Krasnodar, 350063
S. D. Kuznetsova
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
Email: alexancev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0007-9273-4106
Russian Federation, Build. 2, 8 Trubetskaya St., Moscow, 119048
Z. Z. Mamedli
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: alexancev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9289-1247
Russian Federation, 24 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow, 115522
S. S. Gordeev
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia; Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University); Туumen State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: alexancev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9303-8379
Russian Federation, 24 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow, 115522; Build. 2, 8 Trubetskaya St., Moscow, 119048; 54 Odesskaya St., Tyumen, 625023
References
- Carne P.W.G., Robertson G.M., Frizelle F.A. Parastomal hernia. British J Surg 2003;90(7):784–93. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4220
- Pearl R.K. Parastomal hernias. World J Surg 1989;13(5):569–72. doi: 10.1007/BF01658872
- Van Dijk S.M., Timmermans L., Deerenberg E.B. et al. Parastomal hernia: impact on quality of life? World J Surg 2015;39(10): 2595–601. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3107-4
- Tiernan J., Cook A., Geh I. et al. Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities for the association of coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Colorectal Dis 2014;16(12):965–70. doi: 10.1111/codi.12790
- Chadi S.A., Wexner S.D. Prophylactic approaches for parastomal hernia formation during laparoscopic creation of permanent end stomas: rationale, techniques, and outcomes. In: Eds. P. Sylla, A. Kaiser, D. Popowich. The SAGES Manual of Colorectal Surgery. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-24812-3_37
- Goligher J.C. Extraperitoneal colostomy or ileostomy. Br J Surg 1958;46(196):97–103. doi: 10.1002/bjs.18004619602
- Dong L.R., Zhu Y.-M., Xu Q., Zhang B.-Z. Clinical evaluation of extraperitoneal colostomy without damaging the muscle layer of the abdominal wall. J Int Med Res 2012;40(4):1410–6. doi: 10.1177/147323001204000419
- Heiying J., Yonghong D., Xiaofeng W. et al. A study of laparoscopic extraperitoneal sigmoid colostomy after abdomino-perineal resection for rectal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep 2014;2(1):58–62. doi: 10.1093/gastro/got036
- Jin X., Li Y., Chen B., Zheng B. Extraperitoneal colostomy versus transperitoneal colostomy after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2025;35(3):e1365. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001365
- Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo S., Rodrigues A.C.L.F., de Araújo S.W. et al. Keyhole versus sugarbaker mesh configuration in parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2023;33(5):556–64. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001203
- Cross A.J., Buchwald P.L., Frizelle F.A., Eglinton T.W. Meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2017;104(3):179–86. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10402
- Gordeev S.S., Belenkaya Ya.V., Lukmonov S.N., Mamedli Z.Z. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal end colostomy creation – a video vignette. Colorectal Dis 2023;25(12):2467–9. doi: 10.1111/codi.16797
- Hamada M., Ozaki K., Muraoka G. et al. Permanent end-sigmoid colostomy through the extraperitoneal route prevents parastomal hernia after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2012;55(9):963–9. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31825fb5ff
- Funahashi K., Suzuki T., Nagashima Y. et al. Risk factors for parastomal hernia in Japanese patients with permanent colostomy. Surg Today 2014;44(8):1465–9. doi: 10.1007/s00595-013-0721-3
- Kroese L.F., de Smet G.H., Jeekel J. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal colostomy for preventing parastomal hernia. Dis Colon Rectum 2016;59(7):688–95. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000605
- Tulina I.A., Kitsenko Y.E., Ubushiev M.N. et al. Laparoscopic technique of modified extraperitoneal (retrotransversalis) end colostomy for abdominoperineal excision. Colorectal Dis 2018;20(8):O235–8. doi: 10.1111/codi.14267
- Brandsma H.T., Hansson B.M., Aufenacker T.J. et al.; Dutch Prevent Study Group. Prophylactic mesh placement during formation of an end-colostomy reduces the rate of parastomal hernia: short-term results of the Dutch PREVENT-trial. Ann Surg 2017;265(4):663–9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001903
- Jones H.G., Rees M., Aboumarzouk O.M. et al. Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;7(7):CD008905. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008905.pub3
Supplementary files
