الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
Abstract
There are many surgical options for the repair of PSH, including relocation of stoma to a new site, local repair and mesh repair, but all have disappointing results. Primary repair of the fascial defect should not be carried out as it has a failure rate. Stoma relocation is also associated with a high recurrence and morbidity rate (23%). Mesh repair of PSH is associated with low recurrence and morbidity rate. Prophylactic placement of a mesh at the primary operation seems to be a logical way to prevent PSH formation.
This systematic review and meta-analysis study included thirteen studies with a total of 1287cases; 601cases in patient treated with mesh group and 686 cases in patient treated without mesh group to evaluate the PSH rate in constructing colostomy with or without prophylactic surgical mesh.
We conducted a systematic review of literature in different databases and with pre-specified eligibility criteria and according to Cochrane’s handbook of systematic review guidelines in screening, we concluded sixteen different studies to be included in our study.
Data were obtained from text, tables, figures, and supplementary data. We focused on the following outcome measures:The rate of parastomal hernia, Operative time in minutes, incidence of early complications, postoperative length of hospital stay in days, rate of reoperation and incidence of surgical site infection. Risk of bias assessment was done according to GRADE guidelines to every study using Cochrane’s risk of bias tool for randomized control trials and NIH tool for non-randomized control trials.
Regarding operative time, there was no significant difference between both groups in the surgery duration.
Concerning length of hospital stay, there was no significant difference between both groups in length of hospital stay.
As regard postoperative mortality; none of the studies reported death of any cases in both groups.
Regarding overall postoperative morbidity; both groups performed equally with no statistically significant difference.
With reference to stoma orifice size, there was no significant difference between both groups in the size of stoma orifice.
Concerning incidence of parastomal hernia, our results showed patient who underwent permanent end colostomy with prophylactic Mesh had significant reduction in rates parastomal hernia than those who underwent colostomy without prophylactic mesh.
Regarding colostomy necrosis and stenosis, the current study failed to demonstrate any differences in rates of colostomy necrosis and stenosis between mesh and no mesh groups.
With reference to peristomal infection, there was no significant difference between both groups in incidence of peristomal infection.
Concerning stoma detachment and prolapse, there was no significant difference between both groups.
As regard redo surgery, the result of the current study showed there was no significant difference between both groups.
Regarding wound infection, dehiscence and intraabdominal infection, there was no significant difference between groups.