Mei-Yu Hsu1,2,3,4,5, Jui-Ping Lin1,2,3,4,5, Hsiao-Hui Hsu1,2,3,4,5, Hsing-Ling Lai1,2,3,4,5, Yu-Lin Wu1,2,3,4,5. 1. Mei-Yu Hsu, MS, RN, WOCN, WOC Nurse, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Hualien, Taiwan, ROC. 2. Jui-Ping Lin, BS, RN, WOCN, WOC Nurse, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. 3. Hsiao-Hui Hsu, BS, RN, WOCN, WOC Nurse, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Hualien, Taiwan, ROC. 4. Hsing-Ling Lai, BS, RN, WOCN, WOC Nurse, Department of Nursing, Taiwan National University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. 5. Yu-Lin Wu, PhD, RN, WOCN, Department of Nursing, St Mary's Junior College of Medicine, Nursing and Management, Yilan, Taiwan, ROC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed the literature in order to determine whether evidence indicated that preoperative stoma site marking reduces the occurrence of postoperative stoma and peristomal complications. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of pooled findings. SUBJECTS/ SETTING: We systematically reviewed 6 electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library for English language articles, along with the Airiti Library and Wanfang Data for Chinese articles for evidence related to the effects of stoma site marking on stoma and peristomal complications. We sought articles published from their inception to January 31, 2018. METHODS: Ten studies that included 2109 participants, each comparing 2 groups of patients who did and did not undergo preoperative stoma site marking, were retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who underwent stoma site marking, the marking was associated with reduced stoma and peristomal complications in all stoma types (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.64; P < .001). Patients who underwent stoma and had fecal ostomies experienced fewer complications (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.47; P < .001) than patients with unmarked stomas. In contrast, patients with urostomies did not experience fewer complications when compared to those with unmarked ostomies (OR = 0.531; 95% CI, 0.23-1.21; P = .132). Persons with fecal ostomies also had fewer hernias and peristomal skin complications (ORs = 0.25 and 0.30; 95% CIs, 0.09-0.71 and 0.20-0.44, respectively; both Ps < .001). The results revealed that stoma site marking was associated with reduced early and late stoma and peristomal complications (ORs = 0.76 and 0.38; 95% CIs, 0.61-0.94 and 0.32-0.46; P = .010 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative stoma site marking is associated with a reduced occurrence of stoma and peristomal complications and should be considered as a standard of preoperative care.
PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed the literature in order to determine whether evidence indicated that preoperative stoma site marking reduces the occurrence of postoperative stoma and peristomal complications. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of pooled findings. SUBJECTS/ SETTING: We systematically reviewed 6 electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library for English language articles, along with the Airiti Library and Wanfang Data for Chinese articles for evidence related to the effects of stoma site marking on stoma and peristomal complications. We sought articles published from their inception to January 31, 2018. METHODS: Ten studies that included 2109 participants, each comparing 2 groups of patients who did and did not undergo preoperative stoma site marking, were retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who underwent stoma site marking, the marking was associated with reduced stoma and peristomal complications in all stoma types (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.64; P < .001). Patients who underwent stoma and had fecal ostomies experienced fewer complications (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.47; P < .001) than patients with unmarked stomas. In contrast, patients with urostomies did not experience fewer complications when compared to those with unmarked ostomies (OR = 0.531; 95% CI, 0.23-1.21; P = .132). Persons with fecal ostomies also had fewer hernias and peristomal skin complications (ORs = 0.25 and 0.30; 95% CIs, 0.09-0.71 and 0.20-0.44, respectively; both Ps < .001). The results revealed that stoma site marking was associated with reduced early and late stoma and peristomal complications (ORs = 0.76 and 0.38; 95% CIs, 0.61-0.94 and 0.32-0.46; P = .010 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative stoma site marking is associated with a reduced occurrence of stoma and peristomal complications and should be considered as a standard of preoperative care.
Authors: Carlos Martínez-Gómez; Martina Aida Angeles; Alejandra Martinez; Bernard Malavaud; Gwenael Ferron Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.437