Peristomal Skin Complications Are Common, Expensive, and Difficult to Manage: A Population Based Cost Modeling Study

BACKGROUND: Peristomal skin complications (PSCs) are the most common post-operative complications following creation of a stoma. Living with a stoma is a challenge, not only for the patient and their carers, but also for society as a whole. Due to methodological problems of PSC assessment, the associated health-economic burden of medium to longterm complications has been poorly described. AIM: The aim of the present study was to create a model to estimate treatment costs of PSCs using the standardized assessment Ostomy Skin Tool as a reference. The resultant model was applied to a real-life global data set of stoma patients (n = 3017) to determine the prevalence and financial burden of PSCs. METHODS: Eleven experienced stoma care nurses were interviewed to get a global understanding of a treatment algorithm that formed the basis of the cost analysis. The estimated costs were based on a seven week treatment period. PSC costs were estimated for five underlying diagnostic categories and three levels of severity. The estimated treatment costs of severe cases of PSCs were increased 2-5 fold for the different diagnostic categories of PSCs compared with mild cases. French unit costs were applied to the global data set. RESULTS: The estimated total average cost for a seven week treatment period (including appliances and accessories) was 263€ for those with PSCs (n = 1742) compared to 215€ for those without PSCs (n = 1172). A co-variance analysis showed that leakage level had a significant impact on PSC cost from 'rarely/never' to 'always/often' p<0.00001 and from 'rarely/never' to 'sometimes' p = 0.0115. CONCLUSION: PSCs are common and troublesome and the consequences are substantial, both for the patient and from a health economic viewpoint. PSCs should be diagnosed and treated at an early stage to prevent long term, debilitating and expensive complications

Developments in silicone technology for use in stoma care

YesSoft silicone's flexibility, adhesive capacity and non-toxic, non-odourous and hypoallergenic nature have made it an established material for adhesive and protective therapeutic devices. In wound care, silicone is a component of contact layer dressings for superficial wounds and silicone gel sheeting for reducing the risk of scarring, as well as of barriers for incontinence-associated dermatitis. Regarding stoma accessories, silicone is established in barrier films to prevent contact dermatitis, adhesive removers to prevent skin stripping and filler gels to prevent appliance leaks. Until recently, silicone has not been used in stoma appliances flanges, as its hydrophobic nature has not allowed for moisture management to permit trans-epidermal water loss and prevent maceration. Traditional hydrocolloid appliances manage moisture by absorbing water, but this can lead to saturation and moisture-associated skin damage (MASD), as well as increased adhesion and resultant skin tears on removal, known as medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI). However, novel silicone compounds have been developed with a distinct evaporation-based mechanism of moisture management. This uses colloidal separation to allow the passage of water vapour at a rate equivalent to normal trans-epidermal water loss. It has been shown to minimise MASD, increase wear time and permit atraumatic removal without the use of adhesive solvents. Trio Healthcare has introduced this technology with a range of silicone-based flange extenders and is working with the University of Bradford Centre for Skin Sciences on prototype silicone-based stoma appliance flanges designed to significantly reduce the incidence of peristomal skin complications, such as MARSI and MASD. It is hoped that this will also increase appliance wear time, reduce costs and improve patient quality of life

Output Only Modal Testing of a Car Body Subject to Engine Excitation

Document Version Publisher&apos;s PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication from Aalborg University Citation for published version (APA)