4.4 Review

Evidence summary for nonsurgical prevention and management of parastomal hernia in patients with enterostomy

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages 13173-13182

Publisher

E-CENTURY PUBLISHING CORP

Keywords

Enterostomy; parastomal hernia (PH); evidence-based nursing; prevention; management

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study provides a summary of the best evidence for preventing and managing parastomal hernia in patients with enterostomy, covering various relevant factors and measures. It offers nurses a scientific approach to improve the quality of care for patients with enterostomy.
Objective: To select and obtain the best evidence for parastomal hernia (PH) prevention in patients with enterostomy so as to provide reference for clinical practice to decrease the rate of PH. Methods: Based on the method of evidence-based nursing, this paper proposes the prevention and management of PH in patients with enterostomy. The literature was checked according to the 6S model, and literature evaluation standards (2016 edition) of JBI Evidence-based Health Care Center in Australia were adopted to evaluate the literature quality and evidence level of various studies. Results: Combined with the judgment of professionals, 24 pieces of relevant evidence from 7 dimensions were summarized, including related controllable risk factors, diagnosis and identification, nutrition, the strength of abdominal wall muscle around the stoma, reduction of abdominal pressure, the use of belt on treatment of PH, and the prevention of complications related to PH. Conclusions: This study summarized the best evidence of nonsurgical prevention and management of PH in patients with enterostomy, and provided an evidence-based basis for nurses to carry out clinical work, so as to use scientific methods to manage and prevent the occurrence of PH in patients with enterostomy and improve the quality of care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available