Brienne D Cressey1, Viswanath R Belum2, Pamela Scheinman3,4, Dianne Silvestri5, Nancy McEntee6, Vashti Livingston6, Mario E Lacouture2, Jonathan H Zippin1. 1. Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY 10065, USA. 2. Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10022, USA. 3. Department of Dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA 02111, USA. 4. Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 5. Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01605, USA. 6. Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peristomal dermatitis is a common complication for the >700 000 patients in the United States with an ostomy. The role of stoma skin care products in peristomal dermatitis is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate stoma skin care products as a cause of peristomal dermatitis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with peristomal dermatitis at four academic hospitals from January 2010 to March 2014 was performed. Patient demographics, clinical information and use test and patch test results were documented. RESULTS: Eighteen patients identified as having peristomal dermatitis were tested. Twelve of these had peristomal contact dermatitis. We identified numerous stoma skin care products as triggers of irritant and/or allergic contact dermatitis. The most common stoma skin care product used and/or involved in dermatitis was Cavilon™ No Sting Barrier Film. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support a paradigm shift whereby healthcare workers treating patients with peristomal dermatitis, which is currently considered to be a reaction mainly to bodily fluids, must consider those products used to protect the skin as potential triggers for this disease. Therefore, patients with peristomal dermatitis should be tested with their stoma skin care agents to determine the need for removal or change of these products. Additionally, full ingredient labelling by manufacturers would help identify new allergens and irritants.
BACKGROUND: Peristomal dermatitis is a common complication for the >700 000 patients in the United States with an ostomy. The role of stoma skin care products in peristomal dermatitis is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate stoma skin care products as a cause of peristomal dermatitis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with peristomal dermatitis at four academic hospitals from January 2010 to March 2014 was performed. Patient demographics, clinical information and use test and patch test results were documented. RESULTS: Eighteen patients identified as having peristomal dermatitis were tested. Twelve of these had peristomal contact dermatitis. We identified numerous stoma skin care products as triggers of irritant and/or allergic contact dermatitis. The most common stoma skin care product used and/or involved in dermatitis was Cavilon™ No Sting Barrier Film. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support a paradigm shift whereby healthcare workers treating patients with peristomal dermatitis, which is currently considered to be a reaction mainly to bodily fluids, must consider those products used to protect the skin as potential triggers for this disease. Therefore, patients with peristomal dermatitis should be tested with their stoma skin care agents to determine the need for removal or change of these products. Additionally, full ingredient labelling by manufacturers would help identify new allergens and irritants.
Authors: J G Marks; D V Belsito; V A DeLeo; J F Fowler; A F Fransway; H I Maibach; C G Mathias; J R Nethercott; R L Rietschel; E F Sherertz; F J Storrs; J S Taylor Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Dhimiter Bello; Christina A Herrick; Thomas J Smith; Susan R Woskie; Robert P Streicher; Mark R Cullen; Youcheng Liu; Carrie A Redlich Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Rachel S Rigo; Laura E Levin; Donald V Belsito; Maria C Garzon; Rachelle Gandica; Kristen M Williams Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-05-09