Comparative evaluation through biomechanical tests of two-piece ostomy systems

Section: Trabajos del Sector

How to quote

Gómez Pérez AL, Panadero Morales R, García Torres F, Solera Navarro MJ, Peris Serra JL, Atienza Vicente CM, García Blázquez E. Evaluación comparativa, mediante ensayos biomecánicos, de dispositivos de ostomía de dos piezas. Metas Enferm feb 2020; 23(1):18-23. Doi: https://doi.org/10.35667/MetasEnf.2019.23.1003081535

Authors

Amelia Lucía Gómez Pérez 1,2, Raúl Panadero Morales1, Fernando García Torres1, María Jesús Solera Navarro1,2, José Luís Peris Serra1,3, Carlos M. Atienza Vicente1,4, Eduardo García Blázquez5

Position

1Investigador. Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia (IBV). Universitat Politècnica de València. Valencia2Investigador. Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia-CIBER BBN. Grupo de Tecnología Sanitaria (GTS-IBV). Valencia3Director del área de salud de biomecánica de los sistemas corporales. Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia-CIBER BBN. Grupo de Tecnología Sanitaria (GTS-IBV). Valencia4Director de Ámbito de Tecnología Sanitaria. Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia-CIBER BBN. Grupo de Tecnología Sanitaria(GTS-IBV). Valencia5Market Manager Ostomy Care. Coloplast Productos Médicos

Contact address

Carlos M. Atienza Vicente. Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia (IBV). Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Edificio 9 C. Camino Vera, s/n. 46022 Vale

Contact email: carlos.atienza@ibv.org

Abstract

Objective: to compare the mechanical characteristics of the two-piece ostomy systems most widely used in Spain: (Coloplast or Manufacturer I and Manufacturer II), through mechanical tests.
Method: tests were conducted in the Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia (IBV), using a MTS INSIGHT/468 universal test machine, under environmental conditions of controlled temperature (22-24 ºC) and humidity (39-41%). The sample size for each test was 10 units per each type of system. Three tests were conducted: 1) Resistance test to degradation of the adhesive in saline solution; 2) Resistance test to burst of the outlet in open pouches; 3) Resistance test for the separation between the disc and the pouch.
Results: in the test of resistance to degradation of the adhesive in saline solution, both adhesives were submitted to 6 and 12-hour degradation periods in saline solution at 37 ºC, and significant differences were presented in favour of Manufacturer 1 (Coloplast) for both time periods. In the resistance test for the burst of the outlet in open pouches, the pouches were filled with water, closed and stuck on a flat plate; after applying compression charges until the outlet burst, both systems did not show any significant differences. In the resistance test for the separation between disc and pouch, each pouch was assembled with its disc, and traction charges were applied until their separation; there were significant differences in favour of Manufacturer I (Coloplast).
Conclusion: it can be stated that both systems are safe, but the Coloplast system shows higher durability in terms of degradation by effluent, and a higher safety coefficient regarding the separation between pouch and disc.

Keywords:

stoma; ostomy; ostomy device; type of stoma; peristomal setting; quality of life

Versión en Español

Título:

Evaluación comparativa, mediante ensayos biomecánicos, de dispositivos de ostomía de dos piezas