3
Metas de Enfermería

Metas de Enfermería

OCTUBRE 2020 N° 8 Volumen 23

Use of barrier products in order to prevent complications in the peristomal skin

Section: Originals

How to quote

Mudarra García N, Naranjo Peña I, Calvo Martín JM, Torres Moreno-Cid MD, Nieto Ramos A, Pérez Muñoz R. Uso de productos barrera para prevenir complicaciones en la piel periestomal. Metas Enferm oct 2020; 23(8):50-8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.35667/MetasEnf.2020.23.1003081644

Authors

Natalia Mudarra García1, Inés Naranjo Peña2, Juliana María Calvo Martín3, Mª Dolores Torres Moreno-Cid4, Almudena Nieto Ramos2, Raúl Pérez Muñoz5

Position

1Doctora en Cuidados en Salud. Consulta Cirugía General. Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina. Parla (Madrid)2Diplomada en Enfermería. Estomaterapeuta. Consulta Cirugía General. Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina. Parla (Madrid) 3Auxiliar de Enfermería. Consulta Cirugía General. Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina. Parla (Madrid) 4Diplomada en Enfermería. Área Quirúrgica. Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina. Parla (Madrid)5Médico de Familia. Centro de Salud Huerta de los Frailes. Leganés. Madrid

Contact address

Natalia Mudarra García. C/ Esperanza, 26. 28609 Sevilla La Nueva (Madrid).

Contact email: nmudarra@enf.ucm.es

Abstract

Objectives: to assess the efficacy of using a protective barrier spray for preventing peristomal skin maceration and irritation in surgical patients before disc placement, and to assess the efficacy of the application of said spray before removing the adhesive discs.
Method: a randomized clinical trial was conducted with two comparison arms: the control group (standard cure) and the experimental arm (standard cure + application of spray as barrier method before disc placement and adhesive remover spray for removing them). The study included ostomized patients from the Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina (Parla, Madrid) in 2019, seen at the General Surgery Unit. Patients were randomly assigned to two 15-patient arms. Descriptive variables were collected on recruitment day, and for outcomes at 10 days follow-up. Univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted. The relationship between different variables was evaluated through statistical tests.
Results: thirty (30) patients were randomized, 15 patients to the control arm and 15 patients to the experimental arm. Clinical differences were observed in the comparison arms at study initiation. When comparing the outcome variables at 10 days after surgery in the two study arms, statistically significant differences were observed regarding the presence of complications in the peristomal skin (p< 0.001) with 80% (n= 12) in the control arm vs. 6.7% (n= 1) in the experimental arm, and in terms of type of complications between both arms (0,002), particularly L2-type erosive lesions.
Conclusions: the use of a protective barrier spray on the skin of the patient before placing the ostomy disc as well as the application of an adhesive remover spray for removal seems to reduce the risk of complications in the peristomal skin of surgical patients.

Keywords:

postoperative complications; abdominal lesions; ostomy; skin; occlusive dressings

Versión en Español

Título:

Uso de productos barrera para prevenir complicaciones en la piel periestomal

Artículo completo no disponible en este idioma / Full article is not available in this language

Bibliography

  1. Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM). Las cifras del cáncer en España [internet]. Madrid: SEOM; 2020 [citado 8 sep 2020]. Disponible en: https://seom.org/seomcms/images/stories/recursos/Cifras_del_cancer_2020.pdf.
  2. Cánceres de tubo digestivo bajo. Harrison. Principios de Medicina Interna. 19ª ed. AccessMedicina. McGraw-Hill Medical [internet]. [citado 8 sep 2020]. Disponible en: https://accessmedicina.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=1717&sectionid=114915201
  3. Kedia P, Waye JD. Colon polypectomy: a review of routine and advanced techniques. J Clin Gastroenterol. Septiembre 2013; 47(8):657-65.
  4. Abedrapo M, López S, Azolas R, Díaz M, Sanguineti A, Llanos JL, et al . Resección total del mesorrecto por vía transanal en cáncer de recto: análisis de resultados de una serie preliminar en un hospital universitario. Rev Chil Cir. 2017; 69(1):53-9.
  5. Junginger T, Gönner U, Trinh TT, Lollert A, Oberholzer K, Berres M. Permanent stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010; 53(12):1632-9.
  6. Pera M, Pascual M. Estándares de calidad de la cirugía del cáncer de recto. Gastroenterol Hepatol Ed Impr. 2005; 417-25.
  7. Loftus EV, Friedman HS, Delgado DJ, Sandborn WJ. Colectomy subtypes, follow-up surgical procedures, postsurgical complications, and medical charges among ulcerative colitis patients with private health insurance in the United States. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009; 15(4):566-75.
  8. Fujino S, Miyoshi N, Ohue M, Takahashi Y, Yasui M, Sugimura K, et al. Prediction model and treatment of high-output ileostomy in colorectal cancer surgery. Mol Clin Oncol. sep 2017; 7(3):468-72.
  9. Kiliç E, Taycan O, Belli AK, Ozmen M. [The effect of permanent ostomy on body image, self-esteem, marital adjustment, and sexual functioning]. Turk Psikiyatri Derg Turk J Psychiatry. 2007; 18(4):302-10.
  10. Rodríguez-Montes JA, Rojo E, Álvarez J, Dávila M, García-Sancho Martín L. Complicaciones de la cirugía colorrectal. Cir Esp. 1 de marzo de 2001; 69(3):253-6.
  11. Isaac J, Goldminz AM, Scheinman PL. “Pink Sign”: The Importance of Short-Term Occlusive Testing in Suspected Cases of Contact Urticaria. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2019; 30(2):168-9.
  12. Ju HJ, Lee JH, Kim GM, Park CJ, Bae JM. Accelerated repigmentation of vitiligo after an irritant reaction following occlusion dressing with topical tacrolimus. Eur J Dermatol. 2018; 28(3):388-90. Doi: http:/doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2018.3263
  13. Müller S, Kiritsi D. Epidermolysis bullosa simplex complicated by allergic contact dermatitis caused by a hydrocolloid dressing. Contact Dermatitis. 2017; 76(3):185-6.
  14. Nigro LC, Parkerson J, Nunley J, Blanchet N. Should We Stick with Surgical Glues? The Incidence of Dermatitis after 2-Octyl Cyanoacrylate Exposure in 102 Consecutive Breast Cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020; 145(1):32-7.
  15. Nardini M, Perteghella S, Mastracci L. Growth Factors Delivery System for Skin Regeneration: An Advanced Wound Dressing. Pharmaceutics. 2020; 12(2):120. Published 2020 Feb 3. Doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12020120
  16. Rendell V, Esposito TJ, Gibson A. 48.03 Survey of Surgeons’ Perspectives of Wound Care Centers for Chronic Wound Care [internet]. Academic Surgical Congress Abstracts Archive [citado 8 sep 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.asc-abstracts.org/abs2018/48-03-survey-of-surgeons-perspectives-of-wound-care-centers-for-chronic-wound-care/
  17. Fernández O, Rodríguez Z, Ochoa G, Pineda J, Ibrahim L. Factores de riesgo relacionados con las infecciones postoperatorias. MEDISAN [internet]. Revista Médica de Santiago de Cuba. 2016 [citado 8 sep 2020]; 20(2):135-45. Disponible en: http://www.medisan.sld.cu/index.php/san/article/view/683
  18. Willingham M, Rangrass G, Curcuru C, Hall B, Avidan MS, Haroutounian S. Association between postoperative complications and lingering post-surgical pain: an observational cohort study. BJA. 2020; 124(2): 214-21. DoiI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.10.012.
  19. García-Montero A, Viedma-Contreras S, Martínez-Blanco N, Gombau-Baldrich Y, Guinot-Bachero J, García-Montero A, et al. Abordaje multidisciplinar de una dehiscencia abdominal infectada: evaluación coste-consecuente de apósitos y medidas utilizadas. Gerokomos. 2018; 29(3):148-52.
  20. González-Consuegra RV, Valderrama DCP, Valbuena-Flor LF. Prevención de lesiones de piel: educación en el equipo de salud y familiares de personas hospitalizadas. Rev Fac Med. 2016; 64(2):229-38.
  21. Paula Marcos M, Vázquez Campo M, Tizón Bouza E. ¿Es efectiva la aplicación de apósitos en las heridas quirúrgicas que cierran por primera intención para prevenir la infección? Gerokomos. 2015; 26(2):73-5.
  22. Carla Chibante CC, Fátima FE, Thayane TS. Perfil de clientes hospitalizados com lesões cutâneas. Rev Cubana Enferm [internet]. 2015 [citado 8 sep 2020]; 31(4):[aprox. 5 p.]. Disponible en: http://www.revenfermeria.sld.cu/index.php/enf/article/view/895
  23. García-Fernández FP, Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Verdú-Soriano J. Efectividad de la película barrera no irritante en la prevención de lesiones de piel: revisión sistemática. Gerokomos [internet]. 2009 Mar [citado 8 sep 2020]; 20(1):29-40. Disponible en: http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1 134-928X2009000100005&lng=es
  24. Contardi M, Montano S, Liguori G, Heredia-Guerrero JA, Galli P, Athanassiou A, Bayer IS. Treatment of Coral Wounds by Combining an Antiseptic Bilayer Film and an Injectable Antioxidant Biopolymer. Scientific Reports. 2020; 10:988. Doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-020-57980-1
  25. Axibal E, Brown M. Surgical Dressings and Novel Skin Substitutes. Dermatol Clin. 2019;37(3): 349-66. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.det.2019.03.005
  26. Verdú Soriano J, Nolasco Bonmatí A, Martínez Cuervo F, Rueda López J, Soldevilla Ágreda JJ. Estudio ATHAC 04-05: Estudio observacional sobre el uso de apósitos neutros o impregnados en agente antibacteriano de una innovadora tecnología patentada: la tecnología lípido coloidal (TLC) para el tratamiento de heridas agudas y/o crónicas. Gerokomos. junio 2006; 17(2): 42-50.
  27. Rueda López J, Guerrero Palmero A, Segovia Gómez T, Muñoz Bueno AM, Bermejo Martínez M, Rosell Moreno C. Dermatitis irritativa del pañal: tratamiento local con productos barrera y calidad de vida. Gerokomos. marzo 2012; 23(1):35-41.
  28. Toma E, Veneziano ML, Filomeno L. The evaluation of skin lesions, according to the Toven Method - an interprofessional communication tool. Clin Ter. junio 2019; 170(3):e177-80.
  29. Palomar-Llatas F, Ruiz-Hontangas A, Castellano-Rioja E, Arantón Areosa L, Rumbo-Prieto JM, Fornes-Pujalte B. Validación de la escala FEDPALLA-II para valoración y pronóstico de la piel perilesional en úlceras y heridas. Enferm Dermatol. 2019; 13(37): 43-51. Doi: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3458502.
  30. Ferreira D da H, Teixeira ML de O, Branco EM da SC. Cuidados de enfermagem para a prevenção de lesão de pele por adesivos em feridas cirúrgicas. Ciênc Cuid Saúde [internet]. 2017 [citado 8 sep 2020]. Disponible en: http://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/CiencCuidSaude/article/view/33421/20013
  31. Schuren J, Becker A, Sibbald RG. A liquid film-forming acrylate for peri-wound protection: a systematic review and meta-analysis (3M Cavilon no-sting barrier film). Int Wound J. septiembre 2005; 2(3):230-8.
  32. Segovia Gómez T, Morán JA, González S. Evaluación in vivo mediante microscopia confocal del efecto protector de la película barrera no irritante 3M Cavilon sobre la piel perilesional. Gerokomos. marzo 2008; 19(1):41-6.
  33. Berkers T, Boiten WA, Absalah S, Smeden Jv, Lavrijsen APM, Bouwstra JA. Compromising human skin in vivo and ex vivo to study skin barrier repair. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids. 2019; 1864(8):1103-8. Doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bbalip.2019.04.005
  34. Snatchfold J, Targett D. Exploratory study to evaluate two clinical methods for assessing moisturizing effect on skin barrier repair. Skin Res Technol Off J Int Soc Bioeng Skin ISBS Int Soc Digit Imaging Skin ISDIS Int Soc Skin Imaging ISSI. mayo 2019; 25(3):251-7.
  35. Beitz JM, Gerlach MA, Schafer V. Construct validation of an interactive digital algorithm for ostomy care. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs Off Publ Wound Ostomy Cont Nurses Soc. 2014; 41(1):49-54.
  36. ConvaTec. The SACSTM Instrument. ConvaTec Colombia [internet]. [citado 8 sep 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.convatec.co/ostomias/informacion-sobre-asistencia-al-paciente/recursos/biblioteca-de-imagenes/el-instrumento-sacs/