Introduction
In recent years, with the rapid development of living standards, people’s eating habits and lifestyles have undergone major changes, leading to a continuously increasing trend in the incidence and mortality of malignant tumours such as gastric cancer and colorectal cancer.1 The treatment of colorectal cancer predominantly involves surgery, and the number of patients undergoing enterostomy is on the rise.2 Enterostomy requires the removal of the cancerous end of the intestine, extraction of a section of the intestine through the abdominal incision, and its attachment to the abdominal wall skin to form a stoma.3 As the anal sphincter loses its normal excretion function, patients must use a stoma bag to collect excreta postsurgery. In the USA, approximately 100 000 patients undergo enterostomy annually, with a current total of 1 million enterostomy patients.4 Despite rapid advancements in surgical techniques, the incidence of high output in enterostomy patients ranges from 23.8% to 31.1% compared with other common surgical procedures.5 6
Postoperative complications of enterostomy can be categorised into early and advanced complications based on the time of occurrence. Early complications refer to those occurring within the first 30 days postoperation. High output is a prevalent early complication of enterostomy.7 Typically, the output from an enterostomy ranges from 500 to 2000 mL but varies based on the type of stoma, enteral feedings and other factors. A review of extensive literature reveals ambiguity in the normal output for different types of enterostomies; however, it is widely accepted that an output exceeding 1500 mL per day from a small bowel enterostomy is considered high.8 Fluid losses postsurgery usually resolve within a few weeks due to adaptive changes in the remaining small intestine. In some patients, high-output enterostomy results from inadequate adaptation or other causes of diarrhoea, such as indigestible food intake, leading to significant water and electrolyte loss, and potentially causing complications like kidney function injury.9 High output is also the most common reason affecting readmissions of enterostomy patients.10 Moreover, the quality of life for patients with enterostomy is poor in the early stages due to insufficient knowledge about stoma care and influences such as psychological emotions.11 Overall, the risk of postoperative complications after enterostomy is lifelong, with high output being a frequent complication. Specialist stoma nurses should proactively focus on complication prevention and provide guidance.
Currently, the literature on preventing high output has not received adequate attention, and there is no consensus to guide precise and effective nursing interventions for preventing high output in enterostomy patients. Monitoring of enterostomy discharge is also often overlooked by patients and clinical ostomy nurses. Additionally, the variable quality of relevant literature can waste medical resources and lead to misleading clinical practices.
Given these issues, it is urgent to determine a comprehensive and effective prevention programme for high output. The scoping review, based on evidence-based concepts, aims to help researchers understand the scope and characteristics of existing evidence and identify gaps in the evidence. Thus, the methods employed in this study were designed to retrieve, summarise and analyse relevant evidence on high output in enterostomy patients, providing an evidence-based foundation for clinical nurses, patients and caregivers to implement enterostomy care and reduce the incidence of high output.
The review
Review questions
-
What are the risk factors for high output enterostomy?
-
What are the critical evaluation contents of high-output enterostomy?
-
What are the main interventions that can effectively prevent high-output enterostomy?
Methods
This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews.12 13 The study is scheduled to commence in April 2024 and conclude in August 2024. This protocol has been registered with the OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UF9B7).
Patient and public involvement
No patients and the public were involved.
Context
Inclusion criteria
The subjects are patients who have undergone enterostomy (including colostomy, ileostomy, cecostomy, jejunostomy, etc) after a pathological diagnosis of malignant diseases such as stomach and colorectal cancer. The patients are 18 years or older. Enterostomy in children is excluded due to factors such as the thin cuticle of the skin, crying and different ostomy bag management needs. Additionally, children undergoing enterostomy often have various congenital diseases, such as anal absence and Hirschsprung’s disease, which differ significantly from adult enterostomy. Finally, the rehabilitation outcomes for minor enterostomy patients depend on the effectiveness of care provided by primary caregivers, which is a further reason for their exclusion from this study.
Exclusion criteria
-
The subjects are patients undergoing urostomy.
-
Conference abstracts, animal experiments or preclinical trial studies and studies without specifying the type of stoma.
-
Studies where the full text is not available.
-
Studies with incomplete data and unsuccessful attempts to contact the original authors.
Concept
The objective of this scoping review is to search, select and extract evidence for the prevention and care of high-output enterostomy patients. According to the requirements of different databases, appropriate search strategies will be developed, and a literature search will be conducted. The data that meet the inclusion criteria will be analysed. The main contents include (1) risk factors for high-output enterostomy patients; (2) critical evaluation contents of high-output enterostomy, such as symptoms and signs of high output in enterostomy patients and (3) interventions that can effectively prevent and improve high output.
Types of studies
The literature types included in this study encompass randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, observational studies and descriptive studies. Qualitative studies and systematic reviews will also be considered and published in either English or Chinese, from January 2015 to January 2024. This review will include studies on high-output enterostomy conducted in any country or region.
Search strategy
The search for studies related to the prevention of high output in adult enterostomy patients will be conducted through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Chinese Biological Literature Database and the Cochrane Library. We will employ the following MeSH terms and/or free-text terms: surgical stomas, enterostomy, ostomy, stoma, ileostomy, jejunostomy, colostomy, high output, fast transit, diarrhoea, risk factor, association, relative risk, factor, influence, correlation, management, treatment, therapy and care.
Additionally, grey literature sources, such as Google Scholar, will be searched to ensure comprehensive evidence incorporation. Grey literature includes materials published by government departments, academic institutions and commercial industries that are non-profit, helping to avoid publication bias. The flow chart of the study diagram is presented in figure 1, and the detailed search strategy is outlined in online supplemental appendix S1.
Supplemental material
The flow diagram of the study selection.
Literature screening
The literature screening will be conducted independently and cross-checked by two reviewers (Che Y and Luo ZL). In the event of disagreements, decisions will be discussed in a group meeting. The reviewers will independently use EndNote V.X9 software to remove duplicate entries and initially exclude irrelevant literature by reviewing titles and abstracts. For literature retained after this initial screening, further exclusions will be made by reading the full text to ensure alignment with the study theme, such as research object consistency and intervention plans.
Data extraction and presentation
Two reviewers (Che Y and Luo ZL) will independently extract data, including (1) research design, title, author, year of publication, types of literature, country or region of publication, and publication languages; (2) baseline characteristics of participants: sample size, gender, age, type of enterostomy, characteristics of the research population; (3) intervention details: intervention measures, observation period and (4) primary outcomes: the incidence of high-output enterostomy, enterostomy output volume, the change of output and the factors contributing to high-output enterostomy. There will be no secondary outcome measures.
Strategy for data synthesis
The study design, baseline characteristics of participants and intervention details of this scoping review will be quantitatively summarised in table format. For the incidence of high output in enterostomy, enterostomy output volume, changes in output and factors contributing to high-output enterostomy will be presented in the form of frequency, percentage and descriptive summary.
Quality of evidence
The quality of evidence for outcome indicators will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.14 The GRADE evaluation criteria include five grading factors: research limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. The evidence quality will be rated across four levels: high, moderate, low and very low. The default evidence quality for RCTs is high, with one grade reduction to moderate, two reductions to low and three to very low.
For cohort studies, case–control studies and other non-RCTs included in this review, the risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.15 ROBINS-I tool divides bias into 7 domains with a total of 33 items: (1) confounding bias; (2) subject selection bias; (3) intervention classification bias; (4) intentional intervention deviation bias; (5) loss of data bias; (6) outcome measurement bias and (7) selective reporting bias. According to the evaluation results of each item, the researcher will make yes (Y), probably yes (PY), no (N), probably no (PN) and no information (NI) answers. ROBINS-I divided the evaluation results into five levels: low risk of bias, moderate risk of bias, high risk of bias, critical risk of bias and no information.
This post was originally published on https://bmjopen.bmj.com