Recommendations for use of adhesives on hospitalized newborns: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The skin is the largest organ in the human body. It provides multiple barrier functions, tactile or defensive, and acts as a mediator allowing for the attachment of vital monitoring devices with medical adhesives. Adhesives consist of several layers with varying compositions and properties. We aimed to provide recommendations for their use in the care of hospitalized neonates on the basis of a systematic literature review.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for English or French articles published before May 29, 2020, using the keywords "adhesive," "tape,", "skin," and "neonat*." Recommendations were developed after review by a multidisciplinary group including 15 professionals and parent representatives.

RESULTS

We identified 295 studies, and from 30 eligible studies we developed six recommendations according to four perspectives: assessment of the skin condition to improve the methods of application of the different adhesives and their removal; use of adhesives as a platform; and discouraging the regular use of semi-permeable dressings to compensate for the immaturity of the skin barrier.

CONCLUSION

Skin lesions are common for hospitalized neonates. Use of adhesives may increase the occurrence of such lesions. Adhesives should be subject to good clinical practice guidelines. Health professionals caring for newborns should know the tools for screening and preventing skin lesions.

Patients' experiences with the application of medical adhesives to the skin: a qualitative systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Medical adhesives are adhesives used in medical devices to establish and maintain contact with the body over a period of time (usually by application to the skin) and are widely used in most care settings. Application of medical adhesives to the skin can lead to skin stripping, mild or severe allergic reactions and skin irritation that may manifest as redness, itching or rash. Adhesive-related skin injury can lead to infection, delayed wound healing and an increased risk of scarring. These injuries can cause severe discomfort and pain, and can affect the patient's quality of life. A systematic review summarising patient's experiences on this topic will contribute to informing adhesive producers and policy makers, and guiding further development and improvement of available technologies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review protocol is based on the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search will be conducted in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. In addition, manual searches will be performed, reviewing the reference lists of relevant reviews and articles included for quality assessment. Qualitative studies using various methods will be considered for inclusion. Screening of title, abstract and full text will be done by two reviewers. The methodological quality of studies under consideration will be critically assessed by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Qualitative Research. Data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers using a predefined data extraction form. Meta-aggregation will be used to summarise the evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval or consent is required because no participants will be recruited. This systematic review protocol is published in an open access journal to increase transparency of the research methods used. Results will be disseminated at national and international conferences.

The prevalence of medical adhesive-related skin injury caused by protective dressings among medical staff members during the 2019 coronavirus pandemic in China

AIM

To explore the prevalence and risk factors for medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI) caused by protective dressings among medical staff members during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) in China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was released through the Questionnaire Star website and was completed online. The prevalence of MARSI was calculated and risk factors were analyzed using a multiple regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 414 front-line medical staff members treating COVID-19 patients were enrolled from 46 hospitals across four provinces and two municipalities. Overall, 83.1% used protective medical adhesive dressings applied to the head and face to prevent skin damage from personal protective equipment. The prevalence of MARSI caused by adhesive dressings was 41.9%. By multiple regression analysis, the type of dressing, duration of dressing usage, and pain score were risk factors for MARSI development.

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence indicates MARSI is common among front-line medical staff members, especially those using hydrocolloid dressings and longer durations of dressing usage. Pain upon dressing removal can be severe and increased the risk of MARSI. We call for paying more attention to MARSI and recommend multisite studies with larger sample sizes to enhance the generalizability of these findings.

[Guidelines for neonatal skin management in the neonatal intensive care unit (2021)]

Neonates are easily suffering from local or systematic infections due to their vulnerable skin barrier function, which leads to the increasing risk of death. Therefore, it is important to protect neonatal skin integrity and prevent neonatal skin injury in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and current evidence, the guidelines for neonatal skin management in the NICU were developed to provide recommendations on routine skin care and prevention and treatment of iatrogenic skin injury of neonates for health care providers.

Hydrocolloid versus silicone gel for the prevention of nasal injury in newborns submitted to noninvasive ventilation: A randomized clinical trial

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of the hydrocolloid and the silicone gel on the nasal protection of the newborns (NBs) during the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV).

Materials and methods

Thirty-three NBs were selected. They were randomly divided into three groups of 11 NBs, according to the type of nasal protection used: hydrocolloid, thick silicone gel, and thin silicone gel. The stage of the nasal injury and need for exchanging nasal protection were assessed before the connection to the NIV and every 24 h until the physician's authorization for NIV's suspension.

Results

The mean gestational age was 32.03 ± 3.93 weeks, and the median birth weight was 1760 g (750–3535 g). The incidence of nasal injury using hydrocolloid, thick silicone gel, and a thin silicone gel group was 36.36%, 81.81%, and 72.72%, respectively (p = 0.06). Regarding the injury stage, there was no statistical significance between the three study groups. The hydrocolloid protection type had the best adhesion (p = 0.03) on the NBs' skin.

Conclusions

Although this study was conducted by local practice patterns, the results showed that the hydrocolloid could be the best choice to prevent the nasal septum base injury in the NB submitted to NIV.

Silicone-based adhesive removers for preventing peristomal skin complications caused by mechanical trauma

Peristomal skin complications (PSCs) are reported by 77% of people with a stoma, with a serious impact on their quality of life, as well as on healthcare resources. PSCs are usually caused by irritant contact dermatitis from stoma effluent or skin stripping from mechanical trauma to the stratum corneum caused by removal of the ostomy appliance. The risk of mechanical trauma is higher in neonates, young infants and older adults, who have more fragile, friable skin. The incidence and impact of PSCs can be reduced with an appropriate appliance change routine. Mechanical trauma is reduced by minimising the frequency of appliance changes and using an adhesive remover wipe or spray. In adults with a stoma, silicone-based solvents are considered the first choice, as they are skin-friendly and sting-free, and they release the adhesive from the skin quickly and evaporate within seconds, without leaving a residue. However, for neonates, wipes and specialist paediatric oil-based adhesive removers are advised instead. The efficacy of adhesive removers, and silicone-based solvents in particular, at maintaining skin integrity and reducing discomfort has been reported by both stoma care nurses and people with a stoma.

Proper Surgical Dressing Removal Technique in Obstetrics and Gynecology

BACKGROUND

Medical adhesive-related skin injury is often caused by improper technique in removing surgical dressings and may lead to pain, infection, delayed healing, and litigation. It is rare for obstetrics and gynecology residents and staff to receive any training regarding the proper technique for removing surgical dressings.

TECHNIQUE

The proper technique for the removal of adhesive dressings is discussed, minimizing patient discomfort and lessening the risk of skin injury. A video is included.

EXPERIENCE

By using a slow rate of removal, the proper angle of traction, counter-traction with an index finger, and adhesive solvents when necessary, patients experience much less pain with dressing removal, and skin injury can be avoided.

CONCLUSION

Using proper technique when removing adhesive dressings can reduce the incidence of skin injury. Obstetrician-gynecologists should be cognizant of the risk of iatrogenic medical adhesive-related skin injury.

Minimising pain and medical adhesive related skin injuries in vulnerable patients

The skin is the largest and one of the most important organs of the body and as such it is essential that skin integrity is maintained to preserve normal body functions as much as possible at all times. Health professionals must endeavour to minimise any pain and trauma likely to be encountered by their patients through the use of a variety of medical products and devices that are designed to adhere to the skin, especially as the use of dermatological and wound-management products in particular, that incorporate adhesives to help keep them secure and in place, has grown in line with the increasingly ageing population and changing demographics throughout the UK. This article reviews the literature related to the causes of medical-adhesive-related skin injuries (MARSIs) and the reported patient effects, in particular pain and skin trauma and highlight some ‘at-risk’ patient groups and potential actions to minimise risk. A sterile silicone medical adhesive remover—Appeel Sterile—is introduced and the clinical benefits highlighted through the discussion of clinical evidence and case studies undertaken on a range of patients with varied aetiologies.

Using silicone technology to maintain healthy skin in stoma care

The use of silicone in stoma care has grown in recent years and may be considered the next step in the revolutionary development of stoma-care products. Clinical nurse specialists aim to provide evidence-based care at all times, and the same is true for stoma-care nurses. Preventing harm by choosing products that have a sound research base provides the patients with up-to-date, quality care, which enables them to adapt to life with a stoma and return to 'normal' functioning. This article explores the issue of peristomal skin problems and the development of silicone products, and highlights scenarios where it could be an advantage to choose a silicone product.

Modern methods of the treatment of hereditary epidermolysis bullosa

Today there are no ethiopathogenetic treatment methods for treating hereditary epidermolysis bullosa. All available treatment methods are symptomatic and are mainly aimed at patient care. Since severe forms of hereditary epidermolysis bullosa affect multiple organs, patients need assistance of both dermatologists and skilled experts such as general practitioners (pediatricians), gastroenterologists and dentists or ophthalmologists, surgeons, hematologists, oncologists, etc. when needed. To take efficient therapeutic and preventive measures, clinical recommendations and treatment standards are needed. Promising therapeutic methods (protein replacement, cell and gene techniques) are currently at different development and implementation stages but they can solve problems related to the treatment of hereditary epidermolysis bullosa in the future.

Multicentre consensus recommendations for skin care in inherited epidermolysis bullosa

Background

Inherited epidermolysis bullosa (EB) comprises a highly heterogeneous group of rare diseases characterized by fragility and blistering of skin and mucous membranes. Clinical features combined with immunofluorescence antigen mapping and/or electron microscopy examination of a skin biopsy allow to define the EB type and subtype. Molecular diagnosis is nowadays feasible in all EB subtypes and required for prenatal diagnosis. The extent of skin and mucosal lesions varies greatly depending on EB subtype and patient age. In the more severe EB subtypes lifelong generalized blistering, chronic ulcerations and scarring sequelae lead to multiorgan involvement, major morbidity and life-threatening complications. In the absence of a cure, patient management remains based on preventive measures, together with symptomatic treatment of cutaneous and extracutaneous manifestations and complications. The rarity and complexity of EB challenge its appropriate care. Thus, the aim of the present study has been to generate multicentre, multidisciplinary recommendations on global skin care addressed to physicians, nurses and other health professionals dealing with EB, both in centres of expertise and primary care setting.

Methods

Almost no controlled trials for EB treatment have been performed to date. For this reason, recommendations were prepared by a multidisciplinary team of experts from different European EB centres based on available literature and expert opinion. They have been subsequently revised by a panel of external experts, using an online-modified Delphi method to generate consensus.

Results

Recommendations are reported according to the age of the patients. The major topics treated comprise the multidisciplinary approach to EB patients, global skin care including wound care, management of itching and pain, and early diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma. Aspects of therapeutic patient education, care of disease burden and continuity of care are also developed.

Conclusion

The recommendations are expected to be useful for daily global care of EB patients, in particular in the community setting. An optimal management of patients is also a prerequisite to allow them to benefit from the specific molecular and cell-based treatments currently under development.