To evaluate evidence on the incidence of parastomal hernia, subcutaneous stomal prolapse, and external stomal prolapse after open versus minimally invasive intestinal resection with definitive stoma formation.
Approach:
Registration and reporting: The review was reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD420251026395).
Search and eligibility: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched through April 2, 2025. Eligible studies included adults undergoing intestinal resection with definitive ileostomy or colostomy, compared open with laparoscopic or robotic resection, reported relevant stoma outcomes, and had at least 12 months of follow-up.
Exclusions and assessment: Studies involving prophylactic mesh or stoma-construction techniques intended to reduce parastomal hernia, including the extraperitoneal route, were excluded, along with other ineligible reports. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I or RoB 2.
Synthesis: The supplied excerpt ends during the statistical-analysis section and does not provide the synthesis methods or results.
Key Findings:
The supplied excerpt contains no included-study results or comparative incidence estimates.
The source describes heterogeneous definitions and diagnostic criteria as limiting comparisons and reliable distinction between parastomal hernia and subcutaneous stomal prolapse.
Interpretation:
The supplied excerpt describes the review rationale and methods but does not report findings establishing whether open or minimally invasive surgery is associated with different complication rates.
Limitations:
The supplied excerpt ends during the statistical-analysis section and contains no results or study-level findings.
Breast cancer management is becoming increasingly biology-driven, with treatment decisions extending well beyond anatomic stage and conventional receptor classification.
