Objective: The primary objective of this trial was to compare the parastomal hernia rates 1 year after the construction of an end colostomy by 3 surgical techniques: cruciate incision, circular incision in the fascia and using prophylactic mesh. Secondary objectives were evaluation of postoperative complications, readmissions/reoperations, and risk factors for parastomal hernia. Summary of Background Data: Colostomy construction techniques have been explored with the aim to improve function and reduce stoma complications, but parastomal herniation is frequent with an incidence of approximately 50%. Methods: A randomized, multicenter trial was performed in 3 hospitals in Sweden and Denmark; all patients scheduled to receive an end colostomy were asked to participate. Parastomal hernia within 12 months was determined by computed tomography of the abdomen in prone position and by clinical assessment. Complications, readmissions, reoperations, and risk factors were also assessed. Results: Two hundred nine patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 arms of the study. Patient demographics were similar in all 3 groups. Assessment of parastomal hernia was possible in 185 patients. The risk ratio (95% confidence interval) for parastomal hernia was 1.25 (0.83; 1.88), and 1.22 (0.81; 1.84) between cruciate versus circular and cruciate versus mesh groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to parastomal hernia rate. Age and body mass index were found to be associated with development of a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: We found no significant differences in the rates of parastomal hernia within 12 months of index surgery between the 3 surgical techniques of colostomy construction.

BackgroundThe construction of a colostomy is a common procedure, but the evidence for the different parts of the construction of the colostomy is lacking. Parastomal hernia is a common complication of colostomy formation. The aim of this study is to standardise the colostomy formation and to compare three types of colostomy formation (one including a mesh) regarding the development of parastomal hernia.Methods/DesignStoma-Const is a Scandinavian randomised trial comparing three types of colostomy formation. The primary endpoint is parastomal herniation as shown by clinical examination or CT scan within one year. Secondary endpoints are re-admission rate, postoperative complications (classified according to Clavien-Dindo), stoma-related complications (registered in the case record form at stoma care nurse follow-up), total length of hospital stay during 12 months, health-related quality of life and health economic analysis as well as re-operation rate and mortality within 30 days and 12 months of primary surgery. Follow-up is scheduled at 4-6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months. Inclusion is set at 240 patients.DiscussionParastomal hernia is a common complication after colostomy formation. Several studies have been performed with the aim to reduce the rate of this complication. However, none are fully conclusive and data on quality of life and health economy are lacking. The aim of this study is to develop new standardised techniques for colostomy formation and evaluate this with patient reported outcomes as well as clinical and radiological assessment.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT01694238.2012-09-24.

BackgroundInter-professional teamwork in the operating room is important for patient safety. The World Health Organization (WHO) checklist was introduced to improve intraoperative teamwork. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety climate in a Swedish operating room setting before and after an intervention, using a revised version of the WHO checklist to improve teamwork.MethodsThis study is a single center prospective interventional study. Participants were personnel working in operating room teams including surgeons, anesthesiologists, scrub nurses, nurse anaesthetists and nurse assistants. The study started with pre-interventional observations of the WHO checklist use followed by education on safety climate, the WHO checklist, and non-technical skills in the operating room. Thereafter a revised version of the WHO checklist was introduced. Post-interventional observations regarding the performance of the WHO checklist were carried out. The Safety Attitude Questionnaire was used to assess safety climate at baseline and post-intervention.ResultsAt baseline we discovered a need for improved teamwork and communication. The participants considered teamwork to be important for patient safety, but had different perceptions of good teamwork between professions. The intervention, a revised version of the WHO checklist, did not affect teamwork climate. Adherence to the revision of the checklist was insufficient, dominated by a lack of structure.ConclusionsThere was no significant change in teamwork climate by use of the revised WHO checklist, which may be due to insufficient implementation, as a lack of adherence to the WHO checklist was detected. We found deficiencies in teamwork and communication. Further studies exploring how to improve safety climate are needed.Trial registration NCT02329691.