|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 722-728
Effect of preoperative stoma site marking on early and late outcomes of intestinal stoma creation
Khaled S Abbas1, Khaled M Madbouly1, Mohamed Abdel Salam Abbas2, Ahmed Mahmoud Mohii El Dein1
1 Colorectal Surgery Unit, General Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
2 Chairman of Colorectal Surgery Unit, General Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
|Date of Submission||07-May-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||28-May-2019|
|Date of Web Publication||16-Oct-2019|
MD, PhD, Assistant Professor Khaled S Abbas
Colorectal Surgery Unit, General Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 21321
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Purpose To evaluate how preoperative markings of the stoma site influence patients’ quality of life (QOL), whether they improve patients’ independence, and what is their effect on the rates of postoperative early and late complications.
Patients and methods This is a nonrandomized prospective cohort study that included 60 patients who underwent elective intestinal stoma creation in Alexandria Main University Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups. Group A included 30 patients who experienced preoperative marking of their stoma site according to the educational guide developed by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurse Society, and group B included 30 patients who did not experience preoperative marking of their stoma site. A structured, validated questionnaire was used to assess patients’ QOL and the stoma QOL 1 month after surgery. The occurrence of complications was noted during regular outpatient follow-up encounters, with median follow-up of 1 year, and was evaluated by stoma and equipment-related complication scale.
Results A total of 60 patients (48.3% females and 51.7% males) were included. Their mean age was 48.32±14.10 years. It was found that the QOL score of patients whose stoma site was marked (group A) was significantly better (45.03–65.01 vs. 33.58–56.19). Overall satisfaction was significantly better in group A (5.27±1.78 vs. 2.73±2.32).
Conclusion The patients whose stoma sites were preoperatively marked had significantly better QOL and significantly fewer early postoperative complications, and these results are irrespective of the stoma type.
Keywords: intestine, site marking, stoma
|How to cite this article:|
Abbas KS, Madbouly KM, Abbas MS, El Dein AM. Effect of preoperative stoma site marking on early and late outcomes of intestinal stoma creation. Egypt J Surg 2019;38:722-8
|How to cite this URL:|
Abbas KS, Madbouly KM, Abbas MS, El Dein AM. Effect of preoperative stoma site marking on early and late outcomes of intestinal stoma creation. Egypt J Surg [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Feb 24];38:722-8. Available from: http://www.ejs.eg.net/text.asp?2019/38/4/722/269350
| Introduction|| |
The creation of intestinal stoma (IS) is a very common procedure. ISs may be performed under elective or emergency conditions from small or large bowel. IS can be temporary or permanent and may be made during curative or palliative operations ,,. Despite this heterogeneity, the ideal IS should show optimum vascularity of the exteriorized bowel, no tension, passage through the rectus sheath, and optimum opening in both fascia and skin ,,. Clinical practice guidelines for IS surgery also stated that whenever possible, IS should be fashioned to protrude above the skin surface to improve the function and appliance fitting of the IS .
Patients facing with the prospect of bowel surgery are often anxious about the possibility of having an IS and rarely prefer it, despite the fact that the construction of an IS may lead to a significant improvement in quality of life (QOL) ,. Moreover, QOL after stoma creation may be affected by many factors including nature of the disease, severity of the symptoms, general condition of the patient, and attitude of the patient toward the disease. Therefore, QOL measures are important part of surgical decision making and my help patients by providing realistic expectations of surgical outcomes ,,,,.
One of the major factors affecting QOL after IS creation is the incidence of the stoma complications, which occur with a rate ranging between 21 and 70%. IS complications can occur early (metabolic derangements, skin irritation, ischemia, and stoma retraction) or late (parastomal hernia, stoma prolapse, and stoma stenosis) ,,.
There are several risk factors for complications after stoma construction, including high BMI, diabetes, emergency surgery, and technical aspects of IS formation such as stoma height and inappropriate stoma location ,.
If stomas are to be electively created during scheduled surgical cases, then proper preoperative planning is needed to achieve successful postoperative management of the patient ,,. This planning includes both preoperative counseling and stoma site marking ,,,. Enough time should be allowed to the counselor to explore the patient’s knowledge of the disease and understanding of why a stoma may be required. The counseling must encompass several critical aspects for the patient ,,.
Several outcomes may be affected by IS site marking, including IS-related complications and patients’ ability to adapt to the stoma and self-care independently ,,. Although site marking by a certified IS nurse is ideal, preoperative choice of the IS site is frequently done by the surgeon, especially in emergency situations ,,,.
MacDonald and colleagues studied the ability of surgeons and surgical trainees to choose an appropriate IS site and found that surgeons choose sites different from the stoma nurse (the standard). Colorectal surgeons were found to choose sites more concordant to the ostomy nurse specialists ,.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate how preoperative marking of the stoma site influences patients’ QOL and incidence of complications related to IS.
| Patients and methods|| |
This is a prospective cohort study that included 60 patients who underwent elective IS creation in Alexandria Main University Hospital from January 2016 to September 2016. Patients were categorized into two groups. Group A included 30 patients who experienced preoperative marking of their stoma site, and group B included 30 patients who did not experience preoperative marking of their stoma site.
Informed consent was obtained from each patient. The study protocol was registered and approved by the Committee of Postgraduate Studies and Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria. Emergency cases and children aged less than 18 years were not included in the study.
Patients in both groups were subjected to history taking and thorough clinical examination. All available data from investigations done to the patient were collected.
Patients in group A experienced preoperative stoma site marking according to the educational guide developed by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurse Society (WOCN) .
Data were collected about type of surgery, laparoscopic or open; type of the stoma; experience of surgeon who constructed the stoma; operative time; and time needed for stoma construction.
All patients in both groups received the same postoperative care according to the Practice Guidelines for Clinicians published by WOCN ,. A 20-question structured, validated questionnaire was used to evaluate patients’ QOL and stoma QOL 1 month after surgery . A longer version of the same questionnaire was used to assess self-confidence and independence parameters .
Postoperative stoma and equipment-related complications were noted during regular outpatient follow-up, with median follow-up period of 1 year, and was evaluated by stoma and equipment-related complication scale .
Statistical analysis of the data
Data were fed to the computer and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS, version 20, New York, United States). Qualitative data were described using number and percent. Quantitative data were described using range (minimum and maximum), mean, SD, and median. Significance of the obtained results was judged at the 5% level. The used tests of significance were χ2 test, Fisher exact or Monte Carlo correction, Student t test, Mann–Whitney test, and regression.
| Results|| |
The study included 60 patients, comprising 51.7% males, with mean age of 48.32±14.10 years. No statistically significant difference between both groups was found regarding age, sex, and BMI, as shown in [Table 1].
The operative data showed no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding the nature of the primary pathology, type of stoma, indication of stoma, experience of surgeon, and mode of surgery (laparoscopic or open), as shown in [Table 2]. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding total operative time (group A: 163.33±61.06 min vs. group B 179.0±54.49 min, P=0.195) or operative time of stoma construction (group A: 14.01±3.41 min vs. group B: 14.03±4.37 min, P=0.472).
There was also no statistically significant difference in results between both groups regarding the site of the stoma, neither being on the right or left abdominal side, nor its level compared with the umbilical level ([Table 3]).
|Table 3 Comparison between the two studied groups according to stoma site|
Click here to view
QOL score of patients whose stoma site was marked (group A) was significantly better than that of group B ([Table 4]). Group A patients expressed significantly higher overall satisfaction regarding self-confidence and independence in caring for their stomas. There were statistically significant differences in results between both groups in four of the seven independence parameters, as patients of group A were better than those of group B ([Table 5]).
Less than 50% of group A patients needed help caring for their stoma from family or friends compared with more than 85% group B patients, whereas 19 (63%) patients in group B required frequent change of the base plate compared with only six (20%) patients in group A. Moreover, 70% of patients in group A felt confident caring for their stoma compared with 30% of patients in group B ([Table 5]).
The occurrence of various complications was significantly less frequent in patients in group A. There was a statistically significant lower incidence of stoma appliance leakage and fitting problems in group A, whether during the first postoperative month or 6 weeks after the surgery ([Table 6]).
Postoperative appliance leakage was reported by less than 25% of patients in group A compared with more than 85% of those in group B. However, there was no statistically significant difference in results between both groups regarding peristomal skin problems, parastomal hernia, and prolapse throughout the whole follow-up ([Table 6]).
| Discussion|| |
In the current study, it was found that preoperative stoma site marking leads to significantly better QOL, improved patients’ confidence, independence, and lower rates of incidence of early postoperative complications.
These finding were not related to the type of stoma, which can be supported by the results of many studies that found no significant differences in the QOL between patients with temporary ileostomies or colostomies ,.
Better QOL, improved patients’ confidence, independence, and lower rates of early postoperative complications may be mainly owing to less incidence of stoma that lies near a skin crease or bony prominence and better vision of the stoma by the patient.
Bass and colleagues found that patients with preoperative stoma site marking experienced significantly fewer early complications, and this was associated with less incidence of improperly located stomas in this group of patients. However, unlike the current study, Bass and colleagues included patients who had urinary stoma surgery and cases of nontraumatic emergency that needed stomas. Therefore, selection bias is likely .
Gulbiniene and colleagues studied the effect of preoperative IS site marking and patients teaching on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a group of patients managed at two university-based hospitals in Lithuania. Subjects were divided into three groups; one group received preoperative stoma siting and preoperative education, one group received preoperative education but no IS siting, and a third (control) group received neither intervention. The results showed that subjects who received both preoperative teaching and stoma siting achieved higher scores on several HRQOL instruments than did control subjects who received neither intervention. However, subjects who received preoperative teaching alone did not have significantly different scores than control subjects .
Arumugam et al.  prospectively evaluated stomal and peristomal complications in a group of 97 consecutive patients. They found that patients who underwent preoperative stoma site marking had a lower incidence of having a stoma placed in a skin crease, but this difference was not statistically significant. Although this study has the advantage of using a prospective study design, the combination of emergency with elective surgical cases, the combination of preoperative stoma site marking between stoma nurses and other nurses, and the comparatively small number of nonsited stomas (n=15) limit the value of this study in the evaluation of the influence of stoma site marking on postoperative complications . However, it was recommended by WOCN in 2007 that site-selection procedure should include the use of multiple positions (especially the sitting position) with avoidance of skin folds and the priority is a flat surface .
Pittman et al.  studied QOL variables related to stoma complications, severity of skin irritation, problems owing to leakage, and difficulty in adapting to the stoma. They reported that preoperative IS site marking was associated with less difficulty in adapting to the stoma, and preoperative stoma education was associated with less severe skin irritation and leakage.
Millan et al.  reported that early skin irritation and dermatitis occurred at a significantly lower rates in preoperatively IS sited patients compared with nonsited IS patients. The study reported also that patients with preoperative IS site marking experienced significantly less anxiety.
McKenna et al.  studied the effect of preoperative stoma siting on HRQOL instead of stoma-related QOL. Despite having similar results to the current study, McKenna and colleagues included patients who underwent emergency surgery, and only the patients who had their stoma marked preoperatively received preoperative education.
Persson et al.  followed methods similar to the current study, but they did not exclude the urinary stoma, and also the type of the stoma (permanent or temporary) was not normally distributed in both groups. The same questionnaire in the current study was used by Persson et al.  to assess patients’ QOL and found that the QOL of patients who underwent stoma site marking preoperatively was significantly better than that of the unmarked patients (P<0.05 in 18 of 20 items).
In the current study, it was found that preoperative stoma site marking does not result in significantly lower incidence of late postoperative complications mainly parastomal hernia. A similar finding was reported by Bass et al. , which may be explained by the fact that the most important factor to prevent parastomal hernia is to locate the stoma through the rectus muscle which does not depend on preoperative site marking .
| Conclusion|| |
The patients whose stoma sites were preoperatively marked have significantly better QOL and significantly fewer early postoperative complications, and these results are irrespective of the stoma type.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Sands LR, Marchetti F. Intestinal stomas. In: Beck DE, Roberts PL, Saclarides TJ, Senagore AJ, Stamos MJ, Wexner SD, eds. The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer 2011. 517–534
Williams JG. Intestinal stomas. New York: BC Decker Inc. 2009;1–15.
Ulrich AB, Seiler C, Rahbari N, Weitz J, Buchler MW. Diverting stoma after low anterior resection: more arguments in favor. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52:412–418.
Hendren S, Hammond K, Glasgow SC, Perry WB, Buie WD, Steele SR et al.
Clinical practice guidelines for ostomy surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58:375–387.
Scheidbach H, Ptok H, Schubert D, Kose D, Hugel O, Gastinger I, Kockerling F, Lippert H. Palliative stoma creation: comparison of laparoscopic vs. conventional procedures. Lagenbecks Arch Surg 2009; 394:371–374.
Lin E. Colon and appendix. In: Wood WC, Staley CA, Skandalakis JE eds. Anatomic basis of tumor surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer 2010. 381–383
Wilson TR, Alexander DJ. Clinical and non-clinical factors influencing postoperative health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2008; 95:1408–1415.
Siassi M, Weiss M, Hohenberger W, Losel F, Matzel K. Personality rather than clinical variables determines quality of life after major colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52:662–668.
Holzer B, Matzel K, Schiedeck T, Christiansen J, Christensen P, Rius J et al.
Do geographic and educational factors influence the quality of life in rectal cancer patients with a permanent colostomy? Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48:2209–2216.
Pittman J, Rawl SM, Schmidt CM, Grant M, Ko CY, Wendel C et al.
Demographic and clinical factors related to ostomy complications and quality of life in veterans with an ostomy. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2008; 35:493–503.
Follick MJ, Smith TW, Turk DC. Psychosocial adjustment following ostomy. Health Psychol 1984; 3:505–517.
Carne PW, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA. Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2003; 90:784–793.
Hedrick JK. Effects of ET nursing intervention on adjustment following ostomy surgery. J Enterostomal Ther 1987; 14:229–239.
Parmar KL, Zammit M, Smith A, Kenyon D, Lees NP. A prospective audit of early stoma complications in colorectal cancer treatment throughout the Greater Manchester and Cheshire colorectal cancer network. Colorectal Dis 2011; 13:935–938.
Arumugam PJ, Bevan L, Macdonald L, Watkins AJ, Morgan AR, Beynon J et al.
A prospective audit of stomas-analysis of risk factors and complications and their management. Colorectal Dis 2003; 5:49–52.
Millan M, Tegido M, Biondo S, Garcia-Granero E. Preoperative stoma siting and education by stomatherapists of colorectal cancer patients: a descriptive study in twelve Spanish colorectal surgical units. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12(7 Online):e88–e92.
Shabbir J, Britton DC. Stoma complications: a literature overview. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12:958–964.
Kim JT, Kumar RR. Reoperation for stoma-related complications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2006; 19:207–212.
Persson E, Berndtsson I, Carlsson E, Hallen AM, Lindholm E. Stoma-related complications and stoma size − a 2-year follow up. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12:971–976.
Kann BR. Early stomal complications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2008; 21:23–30.
Robertson I, Leung E, Hughes D, Spiers M, Donnelly L, Mackenzie I et al.
Prospective analysis of stoma-related complications. Colorectal Dis 2015; 7:279–285.
Truelove SC, Witts LJ. Cortisone in ulcerative colitis; preliminary report on a therapeutic trial. Br Med J 1954; 2:375–378.
Pilgrim CH, McIntyre R, Bailey M. Prospective audit of parastomal hernia: prevalence and associated comorbidities. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53:71–76.
Tam KW, Wei PL, Kuo LJ, Wu CH. Systematic review of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. World J Surg 2010; 34:2723–2729.
Kodner IJ, Read TH, Loehner DL. Intestinal stomas. In: Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, eds. Maingot’s abdominal operations. Chapter 9. 12th ed New York, Chicago, San Francisco, London: McGraw-HillProfessional; 2012.
American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Committee Members; Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses Society Committee Members. ASCRS and WOCN joint position statement on the value of preoperative stoma marking for patients undergoing fecal ostomy surgery. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2007; 34:627–628.
Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN). Management of the patient with a fecal ostomy: best practice guide for clinicians. Mount Laurel, NJ: Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society; 2010.
Prieto L, Thorsen H, Juul K. Development and validation of a quality of life questionnaire for patients with colostomy or ileostomy. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005; 3:62.
Person B, Ifargan R, Lachter J, Duek SD, Kluger Y, Assalia A. The impact of preoperative stoma site marking on the incidence of complications, quality of life, and patient’s independence. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55:783–787.
Silva MA, Ratnayake G, Deen K. Quality of life of stoma patients: temporary ileostomy versus colostomy. World J Surg 2003; 27:421–424.
Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay MB, Gooszen HG. Quality of life with a temporary stoma: ileostomy vs. colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43:650–655.
Bass EM, Del Pino A, Tan A, Pearl RK, Orsay CP, Abcarian H. Does preoperative stoma marking and education by the enterostomal therapist affect outcome? Dis Colon Rectum 1997; 40:440–442.
Gulbiniene J, Markelis R, Tamelis A, Saladzinskas Z. The impact of preoperative stoma siting and stoma care education on patient’s quality of life. Medicina (Kaunas) 2014; 40:1045–1053.
McKenna LS, Taggart E, Stoelting J, Kirkbride G, Forbes GB. The impact of preoperative stoma marking on health-related quality of life: a comparison cohort study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2016; 43:57–61.
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]