Table 1. Randomized controlled trials of prophylactic mesh placement.

Source	Type of stoma	Type of mesh	Placement technique	No. of patients	Median follow-up	Primary endpoint	PH rate	Mesh-related complications
Janes et al. [10]	Permanent end colostomy	Partially absorbable (Vypro)	Sublay	Mesh, 27; control, 27	14 months (95% CI, 12–17)	Clinical PH	At 12 months:	None reported
							Mesh, 0/16 (0%); control; 8/18 (44.4%)
Serra-Aracil et al. [17]	Permanent end colostomy	Partially absorbable (Ultrapro)	Sublay	Mesh, 27; control, 27	29 mo (range, 13–49 mo)	Clinical PH	At 29 months (median)	None reported
						Radiographic PH	Clinical PH
							Mesh, 4/27 (14.8%); control; 11/27 (40.7%)
							Radiographic PH
							Mesh: 6/27 (22.2%); control; 12/27 (44.4%)
Hammond et al. [43]	Loop stoma	Xenogenic collagen	Sublay	Implant, 10; control, 10	6.5 mo	Clinical PH	At 12 months:	None reported
							Implant: 0/10 (0%); control; 3/10 (33.3%)
Lambrecht et al. [44]	Permanent end colostomy	Polypropylene	Sublay	Mesh, 32; control, 26	40 mo (range, 3–87 mo)	Clinical PH	At 24 months:	None reported
							Mesh, 2/32 (6.3%); control; 12/26 (46.2%)
Vierimaa et al. [46]	Permanent end colostomy	Partially absorbable (Dyna-Mesh IPOM)	Intraperitoneal Onlay	Mesh, 35; control, 35	12 mo	Clinical PH	At 12 months:	None reported
						Radiographic PH	Clinical PH
							Mesh, 5/35 (14.3%); control; 12/32 (32.3%)
							Radiographic PH
							Mesh, 18/35 (51.4%); control; 17/32 (53.1%)

CI, confidence interval; PH, parastomal hernia.