Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention

Efficacy of D33 Sealed Foam in Preventing Skin Injury from Surgical Positioning: Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of density-33 (D33) sealed foam in preventing skin injuries from surgical positioning. Approach: The study, reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, is characterized as a randomized clinical trial, double mask, with 64 adult patients undergoing elective surgery, 35 allocated to the control group (CG), positioned on a conventional surgical table, and 29 to the experimental group (EG), positioned on a conventional surgical table overlaid with a D33 sealed foam support surface (SS) in the occipital, sacral, and heel regions. Simple randomization was carried out, as was masking of the researcher who evaluated the skin of the patient and the statistician. Data collection was carried out immediately preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively until the third day or until patient discharge. Statistical analysis included measures of association in contingency tables, χ2, and relative risk to compare the incidence of injuries between groups. Results: Skin injuries were greater in the CG, with blanchable erythema being the main injury. The use of D33 sealed foam reduced the incidence of injury in the EG by 61.2% (relative risk: 0.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.220-0.684; p < 0.001). Innovation: One of the first clinical studies to demonstrate that using a D33 sealed foam SS decreased the incidence of blanchable erythema from surgical positioning. Conclusion: D33 sealed foam was effective in preventing skin injury from surgical positioning in patients undergoing elective surgeries.

The accuracy of the risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in adult surgical patients: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to synthesize existing evidence regarding the accuracy of different scales to assess the risk of intraoperative acquired pressure injury (IAPI), thus providing guidance for the accurate clinical screening of IAPI risk and helping to prevent and reduce the occurrence of IAPI.

METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases to identify relevant studies on scales to assess the risk of IAPIs among adults: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, the WanFang Database, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two authors independently screened the literature, evaluated the quality of the included studies, and extracted the data. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to rate the quality of evidence. ANOVA was performed via Stata and R software to implement diagnostic network meta-analysis via the Bayesian method to evaluate the predictive power of the dominance index.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies (6721 patients) were included, and the incidence of IAPIs was 12.30% (827/6721). Six IAPI risk assessment tools were used, and their rankings on the basis of the Bayesian dominance index were as follows: the ELPO Scale, 3.12 (95% CI: 0.14, 9); the Norton Scale, 2.63 (95% CI: 0.14, 11); the Waterlow Scale, 2.44 (95% CI: 0.14, 7); the Munro Scale, 2.39 (95% CI: 0.20, 7); the Scott Triggers tool, 1.55 (95% CI: 0.11, 5); and the Braden Scale, 0.36 (95% CI: 0.09, 3).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the ELPO Scale has good diagnostic test accuracy, and it is recommended that clinical workers prioritize the use of this scale in assessing the risk of pressure injuries among surgical patients, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of risk assessment for pressure injuries among surgical patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023470664).

Application of high-frequency ultrasound in the early detection of pressure injury and evaluation of decompression treatment

Background

Pressure injury (PI) is an ischemic necrosis caused by long-term pressure on the local skin, which is common in the sacrococcygeal region of long-term bedridden patients. The main treatment for PI is decompression. The Braden scale is the primary clinical evaluation tool for PI, but it cannot quantitatively evaluate PI. High-frequency ultrasound (HFUS) can be used for the real-time quantitative evaluation of PI. This study used HFUS to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the soft tissues of the sacrococcygeal region in different risk PI groups to investigate any differences in HFUS manifestations and evaluate the efficacy of decompression treatment in stage 1 PI patients.

Methods

A total of 70 patients were recruited from the Intensive Care Unit at West China Hospital, Sichuan University, of whom, 28 were allocated to the case group (a moderate or higher risk for PI, and a Braden score of 15-17) and 42 were allocated to the control group (a very mild risk for PI, and a Braden score ≥18). HFUS was used to measure tissue thickness and ultrasonographic characteristics, as well as blood flow signals at 10 target sites along the transverse plane from the sacral protrusion to the top. Differences between groups were compared, and diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. A subgroup of 12 extremely high-risk patients receiving decompression treatment was also examined. The HFUS parameters were compared before and after treatment to evaluate efficacy.

Results

In the case group, ultrasonographic uneven echo, unclear boundaries between adipose/muscular layers and dermis/adipose layers, and discontinuous deep/superficial fascia were more common closer to sacral protrusions (P<0.05). The case group had thinner median and paraspinal fat layers at all 10 sites than the control group (P<0.05). Certain sites (3, 5-7, and 9-10) in the case group had thicker epidermis (P<0.05), while the muscle layer was thinner at sites 5-10 of the case group (P<0.01). The ROC curve analysis indicated that the median and paraspinal fat layers could be used to effectively classify medium-high-risk patients with optimal performance at sites 3-5. The blood flow signal characteristics and composition ratios differed significantly between the case and control groups at each analyzed site (P<0.05). No significant changes in the Braden scores were found following decompression therapy, but the thickness of the paraspinal fat layer at sites 3 and 4 and the thickness of the median spinal fat layer at site 4 increased significantly (P<0.05). Further, the paraspinal fat layer thickness differed significantly between the initial and sixth ultrasound assessments (P<0.05). Most participants experienced reduced blood flow at the targeted site after decompression treatment.

Conclusions

HFUS enables the quantitative and qualitative assessment of soft tissues in the sacrococcygeal region and could be a valuable tool for predicting PI risks and evaluating treatment effectiveness.

Application of novel strategies in chronic wound management with focusing on pressure ulcers: new perspective

Invading blood cells, extracellular tissue, and soluble mediators all play important roles in the wound-healing process. There is a substantial global burden of disease and mortality attributable to skin defects that do not heal. About 1% to 2% of the population in industrialized nations suffers from chronic wounds that don't heal, despite healthcare breakthroughs; this condition is very costly, costing about $25 billion each year in the US alone. Amputation, infection (affecting as many as 25% of chronic wounds), sepsis, and dermal replacements are all consequences of conventional therapeutic approaches like growth factor therapy and diabetic foot ulcers account for 85% of lower limb amputations. Despite these obstacles, scientists are constantly looking for new ways to speed healing and close wounds. The unique immunomodulatory capabilities and multipotency of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have made them a potential therapeutic choice in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Animal models of wound healing have shown that MSCs can speed up the process by as much as 40% through enhancing angiogenesis, modulating inflammation, and promoting fibroblast migration. Clinical trials provide more evidence of their effectiveness; for instance, one RCT found that, after 12 weeks, patients treated with MSCs had a 72% smaller wound size than those in the control group. This review offers a thorough examination of MSCs by combining the latest research with preclinical evidence. Highlighting their potential to transform treatment paradigms, it delves into their biological properties, how they work during regeneration and healing, and therapeutic usefulness in controlling chronic wounds.

Padding the seat of a wheelchair reduces ischial pressure and improves sitting comfort

In this study, we aimed to examine whether a wheelchair cushion placed directly atop a sling seat or deflection of the sling seat compensated by a pad along with the placement of a wheelchair cushion changed sitting pressure. Additionally, we examined whether these additions changed sitting comfort. For twenty healthy adults who consented to participate, measurements were taken for three types of cushions, each with and without padding, under six conditions. The cushion types tested included air (cushion A), urethane foam (cushion U), and three-dimensional thermoplastic elastomer (cushion T). A pressure distribution measurement equipment was used for the measurements. Following the measurement, the comfort of the wheelchair cushion was measured. The ischial area pressure of the cushion A pad was significantly lower than that without the pad. Cushions U and T were for ischial area pressure with a pad, resulting in a decreasing trend in ischial area pressure with a pad compared to that without a pad; however, the difference was insignificant. For all cushions, sitting comfort was significantly better in all groups with padding than in those without. In conclusion, ischial pressure can be dispersed by placing a pad on the seat surface of a wheelchair cushion, and pads were suggested to improve sitting comfort for all cushions.

Nursing interventions to prevent pressure injury among open heart surgery patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Nurses are vital in identifying and preventive pressure injuries (PIs) in hospitalized patients undergoing open heart surgery. Interventions to prevent PIs are crucial for every critical patient, and it's essential to recognize that preventing PIs involves a complex intervention.

AIM

To examine the nursing interventions for the prevention of PI in patients with open heart surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review study. Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE Ultimate, CINAHL Ultimate, ULAKBIM, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and university library databases were scanned. The initial search performed in the databases was updated on 4 February 2023, and on 7 April 2024, for potential publications included in that period. Data between February 2013 and April 2024 were scanned. The databases were searched with the keywords 'pressure injury', 'nursing interventions' and 'open heart surgery'. The systematic compilation process was carried out in accordance with the guidelines in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guide.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were examined using nursing interventions that applied to the selected study population. Care packages included an inflatable head pad, a pressure sensor mattress cover, multi-layer silicone foam, pressure-reducing coatings, endotracheal tube (ETT) repositioning and cuff pressure regulation. Interventions to reduce PI in open heart surgery patients are applied in the preadmission, perioperative and postoperative periods.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that care packages, inflatable head pads, pressure sensor bedspreads, multi-layered silicone foam, pressure-reducing covers, ETT repositioning and cuff pressure regulation were effective in all nursing interventions. The strength of the available evidence was rated from strong to weak.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

These findings reveal an efficient combination of multi-component nursing interventions for preventing PIs in planning patient care in the intensive care. The interventions that are used throughout the patient's entire care process are crucial for the prevention of PIs.

Incidence of Pressure Injuries in Patients at Risk Using a Powered Alternating Pressure Air Mattress: A Noninterventional Study in a Real-World Setting

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to determine the clinical value of using a powered alternating pressure air mattress (P-APAM) in the prevention of pressure injury (PI) in patients at medium to high risk.

DESIGN

Noncomparative, observational study.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

The sample comprised 86 patients who were >18 years old, were classified as having medium to high risk of PI, had no PI at baseline, and were lying more than 15 hours a day on a specific P-APAM. Data were collected between September 2018 and July 2019, in 4 nursing homes, and 1 long-term care geriatrics hospital department in France.

METHODS

In addition to guideline-based care for PI prevention, patients were followed up for 35 days following placement on the P-APAM. The main outcome was the percentage of patients who developed between day 0 and day 35 at least 1 PI of at least stage 2 on the sacrum, spine, or heel. Secondary outcomes were patient assessments of comfort, caregiver satisfaction, mattress noise level, and mattress safety.

RESULTS

No patients experienced a PI (incidence = 0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.00%-4.28%). Patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the mattress in most cases in terms of comfort (77.9%) and stability (73.0%). Patients also rated the noise level of the mattress as satisfactory or very satisfactory in all cases (100%).

CONCLUSION

When combined with guideline-based PI prevention measures, use of the P-APAM was associated with a low incidence of PI.

The effect of wheelchair cushion properties on the microclimate at the cushion-user interface: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pressure injuries are a preventable yet highly prevalent health concern. Wheelchair cushion prescription can have significant implications for wheelchair users' risk of pressure injury development, which can impact functional abilities and quality of life. The efficacy of a wheelchair cushion to redistribute pressure has been well-researched, but the efficacy to manage the microclimate is less clear, particularly in warm-hot environments. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies examining the effect of wheelchair cushions on temperature, moisture and thermal perception to determine which cushions are superior to improve these responses.

METHOD

A systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised cross-over and randomised control trials of wheelchair cushion interventions on measures of temperature, moisture, and thermal perception was conducted.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria and six meta-analyses were conducted. Pooled analyses identified a significantly lower temperature on foam-gel cushions compared to air cushions (MD = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.31, 1.29; p = 0.002) and a significantly lower temperature on foam-gel cushions compared to foam cushions (SMD = 0.76, 95%CI; 0.45, 1.06; p < 0.00001). Pooled analyses also demonstrated significantly lower relative humidity (i.e., moisture) on foam cushions compared to foam-gel cushions (p = 0.02). Differences in thermal perception were inconclusive due to limited data found.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that not one cushion is ideal in managing all aspects of microclimate, as foam-gel cushions were the superior cushion to manage temperature and foam cushions were the superior cushion to manage moisture. This article provides occupational therapists and other health professionals with evidence-based information to assist with wheelchair cushion prescription that minimises the temperature and moisture accumulation, and associated risk of pressure injury for wheelchair users.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of preventive nursing measures for pressure injuries in patients in the neurology intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Patients in neurology intensive care units (ICU) are prone to pressure injuries (PU) due to factors such as severe illness, long-term bed rest, and physiological dysfunction. PU not only causes pain and complications to patients, but also increases medical burden, prolongs hospitalization time, and affects the recovery process.

AIM

To evaluate and optimize the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention nursing measures in neurology ICU patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted, and 60 patients who were admitted to the ICU of the Department of Neurology were selected and divided into an observation group and a control group according to the order of admission, with 30 people in each group. The observation group implemented pressure injury prevention and nursing measures, while the control group adopted routine care.

RESULTS

Comparison between observation and control groups following pressure injury prevention nursing intervention revealed significantly lower incidence rates in the observation group compared to the control group at 48 h (8.3% vs 26.7%), 7 d (16.7% vs 43.3%), and 14 d (20.0% vs 50.0%). This suggests a substantial reduction in pressure injury incidence in the observation group, with the gap widening over time. Additionally, patients in the observation group exhibited quicker recovery, with a shorter average time to get out of bed (48 h vs 72 h) and a shorter average length of stay (12 d vs 15 d) compared to the control group. Furthermore, post-intervention, patients in the observation group reported significantly improved quality of life scores, including higher scores in body satisfaction, feeling and function, and comfort (both psychological and physiological), indicating enhanced overall well-being and comfort following the implementation of pressure injury prevention nursing measures.

CONCLUSION

Implementing pressure injury preventive care measures for neurology ICU patients will have better results.

Pressure ulcer point prevalence, classification, locations, and preventive measures: Insights from a Norwegian nursing home survey

OBJECTIVE

To report data from a point pressure ulcer (PU) prevalence survey on prevalence, PU categories, locations and preventive interventions at one Norwegian nursing home.

METHODS

A cross-sectional research design was used. One nursing home in Norway participated in the prevalence survey in 2020. The data were collected on one selected day. A total of 74 out of 88 residents (84.1%) participated. Descriptive statistical analyses were run.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of PUs was 27% amongst all participants in the nursing home, who together had a total of 57 PUs categorised as category I-III. One major finding was that the most common site of the PUs was on the residents' toes. Interestingly, the prevalence of PUs in the residents' sacrum was considerably low. The most frequently used PU preventive interventions were foam chair cushions, nutritional supplements and pressure-reducing heel protection.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a high prevalence of PUs, predominantly on residents' toes. Although preventive strategies were implemented, their application appeared limited. Implementing obligatory care packages and annual nationwide PU surveys might be worth considering in municipalities.

Effects of comprehensive nursing intervention on pressure ulcer after traumatic brain injury surgery: A meta-analysis

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a common complication in postoperative patients with traumatic brain injury, and this study used a meta-analysis to assess the effects of comprehensive nursing applied in PUs intervention in postoperative patients with traumatic brain injury. A computerised systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), VIP and Wanfang databases was performed to collect publicly available articles on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of comprehensive nursing interventions in postoperative patients with traumatic brain injury published up to August 2023. Two researchers independently completed the search and screening of the literature, extraction of data and quality assessment of the included literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Twenty-eight articles were finally included, for a cumulative count of 2641 patients, of which 1324 were in the intervention group and 1317 in the control group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with conventional nursing, comprehensive nursing intervention helped to reduce the incidence of PUs in postoperative patients with traumatic brain injury (5.14% vs. 19.67%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.29, p < 0.00001) and reduced the incidence of postoperative complications (7.87% vs. 25.84%, OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11-0.43, p < 0.0001), while increasing patient satisfaction (96.67% vs. 75.33%, OR: 9.5, 95% CI: 3.63-24.88, p < 0.00001). This study concludes that a comprehensive nursing intervention applied to postoperative patients with traumatic brain injury can significantly reduce the incidence of PUs and postoperative complications as well as improve nursing satisfaction, and it is recommended for clinical promotion. However, due to the limitations of the studies' number and quality, more high-quality, large-sample RCTs are needed to further validate the conclusions of this study.

Assessment of compression forces in a digitally modified short leg cast for pressure injury risk monitoring in healthy children

Introduction

Casting is an essential treatment for neuro-orthopedic conditions in children with cognitive, sensory, and communicational disabilities. However, a main side-effect is the development of pressure injuries resulting in additional (wound) therapies and prolongation of the hospital stay. The primary aim of our study was to investigate the potential of objective pressure measurements in casts to assess the risk for pressure injury development.

Methods

Five pediatric healthy participants were included in this study. We measured the global and the local compression force at body sites prone to pressure injury development for different body positions and the transfer in-between in a cast equipped with pressure sensors. These conditions resulted in partial or full body weight loading.

Results and discussion

The global maximum compression force was affected significantly by body postures with partial and full loading of the cast and during transfer. The local compression force significantly correlated with the global compression force at the heel and instep area. In conclusion, the integration of sensing technologies into casts bears a high potential for early recognition of critical conditions inside the cast and inducing preventive measures in the at-risk population.

Organizational development and management factors involved in the prevention and effective therapy of pressure ulcers: The results of the national survey conducted among Hungarian public hospitals

The prevention of pressure ulcer (PU) or pressure injury (PI) wounds is of public health importance in developed countries, including Hungary. The study aimed to assess the PU/PI prevention and care practices of Hungarian public hospitals and identify organizational and management factors. In 2022, a national, questionnaire-based survey of inpatient institutions relevant to PU/PI care was conducted, providing a picture of the practices of 86 hospitals for the year 2019. The questionnaire was processed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis. The survey results show that good practices in Hungary are isolated, the reporting system is inhomogeneous, and documentation is not uniform across our institutional system. Of the 86 institutions, 71.0% operate a PU prevention team, 64.0% use prophylactic dressings, and 88.3% use an anti-decubitus mattress, with an average ratio of 26.1% to the number of beds. Less than half of the institutions reported the incidence of hospital acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). In this sample, we found no significant association between hospital type and hospital size with the incidence of full-thickness HAPIs (stage III and IV wounds). Developing a comprehensive PU/PI reporting system and updating the national PU/PI prevention and care guidelines are essential in Hungary.

Quantifying States and Transitions of Emerging Postural Control for Children Not Yet Able to Sit Independently

Objective, quantitative postural data is limited for individuals who are non-ambulatory, especially for those who have not yet developed trunk control for sitting. There are no gold standard measurements to monitor the emergence of upright trunk control. Quantification of intermediate levels of postural control is critically needed to improve research and intervention for these individuals. Accelerometers and video were used to record postural alignment and stability for eight children with severe cerebral palsy aged 2 to 13 years, under two conditions, seated on a bench with only pelvic support and with additional thoracic support. This study developed an algorithm to classify vertical alignment and states of upright control; Stable, Wobble, Collapse, Rise and Fall from accelerometer data. Next, a Markov chain model was created to calculate a normative score for postural state and transition for each participant with each level of support. This tool allowed quantification of behaviors previously not captured in adult-based postural sway measures. Histogram and video recordings were used to confirm the output of the algorithm. Together, this tool revealed that providing external support allowed all participants: (1) to increase their time spent in the Stable state, and (2) to reduce the frequency of transitions between states. Furthermore, all participants except one showed improved state and transition scores when given external support.

Anthropomorphic model rigid loading indenter with embedded sensor development for wheelchair cushion standard testing

Develop an anthropomorphic model cushion rigid loading indenter with embedded sensors (AMCRLI-ES) to assess compression and shear forces at key locations such as trochanters and ischial tuberosities. The sensor design was optimized using finite element analysis. The AMCRLI-ES was designed with the same dimensions as specified in ISO 16840-2 tests. The AMCRLI-ES is divided into eight independent sections, and each section consists of one 3-axis load cell sensor to measure compression and shear forces normal to the compression direction. Six commercial cushions were tested using the AMCRLI-ES with standard ISO 16840-2 testing procedures. Statistical differences were found for energy dissipation between cushions. Statistical differences (p < 0.001) were found in all stiffness values. Test results showed that energy dissipation (ED) was correlated with hysteresis at 500 N with moderate to high Pearson product correlation r = -0.537, p = 0.022. The hysteresis at 250 N did not show a statistical correlation with ED. The AMCRLI-ES demonstrated the ability to measure compression and shear forces at key locations on the cushion including the thigh, trochanter, ischial tuberosity, and sacral area. It provides in-depth information about how the weight was distributed on the cushions.

SPINE: An Initiative to Reduce Pressure Sore Recurrence

The recurrence rate after pressure sore reconstruction remains high. Primary inciting factors can be organized into efforts aimed at wound prevention: spasticity relief, pressure off-loading, infection and contamination prevention, nutrition optimization, and maximizing extremity function. This article presents our detailed protocol, SPINE, to address each inciting factor with a summary of cases at our facility and review best practices from evidence-based medicine in the literature.

Applying Machine Learning for Intelligent Assessment of Wheelchair Cushions from Pressure Mapping Images

Pressure ulcers are skin and underlying tissue injuries caused by the cells' lack of oxygen and nutrition due to blood flow obstruction from constant pressure on the skin. It is prevalent in people with motion disabilities, such as wheelchair users. For both prevention and healing, wheelchair users should occasionally change their sitting posture, use cushions that evenly distribute the pressure, or relieve pressure from the sensitive areas. Occupational therapists (OTs) often use pressure mapping systems (PMS) to assess their clients and recommend them a cushion. A cushion with more uniform pressure distribution and fewer pressure concentration points is ranked the highest. This paper offers a novel approach to enhance the objectivity of PMS readings and rankings for OTs. Our method relies on image segmentation techniques to generate quantifiable measures for cushions assessment. We implemented a sequential process to generate a score representing a cushion's suitability for an individual, which begins with PMS image segmentation using machine learning, followed by a deep learning algorithm for identifying high-risk pressure points. We introduced a Cushion Index for quantifying and ranking the cushions. Clinical Relevance- By selecting proper cushions for wheelchair users, the risk of developing PUs is reduced.

Effectiveness of a fluid immersion simulation system in the acute postoperative management of pressure ulcers: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

The Fluid Immersion Simulation system (FIS) has demonstrated good clinical applicability. This is the first study to compare surgical flap closure outcomes of FIS with an Air-Fluidized Bed (AFB), considered as standard of care. The success of closure after 14 days post-op was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were incidences of complications in the first two weeks after surgery and the rate of acceptability of the device. 38 subjects were in the FIS group while 42 subjects were placed in the AFB group. Flap failure rate was similar between groups (14% vs 12%; P= 0.84). Complications, notably dehiscence and maceration, were significantly higher in the FIS group (40% vs 17%; P=0.0296). The addition of a microclimate regulation device (ClimateCare®) to FIS for the last 43 patients showed a significant decrease in the rate of flap failure (71% vs 16%; P=0.001) and incidence of complications (33% vs 0%; P= 0.011). There was no statistically significant difference between the FIS and AFB in the rate of acceptability (nurse acceptance: 1.49 vs 1.72; P = 0.8; patient acceptance: 2.08 vs 2.06; P = 0.17), which further illustrates the potential implementation of this tool in a patient-care setting. Our results show that the use of ClimateCare® in combination with FIS can be a better alternative to the AFB in surgical closure of pressure ulcers.

High Versus Low Frequency Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation On Chronic Venous Lower Limb Ulceration Randomized Controlled Trial

The major objective of the current paper is to trace and investigate which method is more effective whether the high or the low Transcutaneous electric Nerve Stimulations (TENS) on venous ulcers. A single-blinded, randomized, and controlled trial was done successfully. Sixty venous ulcer patients were divided randomly into three groups; Group (A): control group, Group(B): High-TENS group, and Group(C): Low-TENS group. Group (A), contains twenty participants who received routine medical care and dressing. As for group (B), includes twenty participants who obtained high-frequency TENS; Frequency (80-120) HZ, Intensity (15 - 30 amp), Pulse duration 250 Micro sec, 60 min per session with routine medical care and dressing. The third group (c) L-TENS, encompasses twenty participants who received low-frequency TENS (1-5) HZ; Intensity (30 -80 amp), Pulse duration 250 Micro sec, 60 min per session with routine medical care and dressing. All the participants were examined before and after two months of intervention; four weeks (post1), then after eight weeks (post2). Participants were examined by using (image j) to measure the ulcer area. Saline was used for measuring the ulcer volume, and a visual analog scale was adopted to evaluate pain. After drawing a comparison among the three groups after four weeks and after eight weeks of treatment, a statistically significant decrease (P <0.05) in wound surface area, wound volume, and pain in favor of L-TENS was noticed. It has been found that L- TENS is more effective than H -TENS and is highly recommended in the treatment protocol for such debilitating conditions.

Effects of alternating pressure air mattresses on pressure injury prevention: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pressure injury (PI) is a significant health problem among inpatients that affects their health, quality of life, and expenses.

AIM

This systematic review aimed to compare effects of alternating pressure air mattresses (APMs) with other types of supporting surfaces as a tool for PI prevention.

METHODS

The literature published between 2009 and 2020 was searched using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses process was followed, including independent study selection and data extraction. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0).

RESULTS

A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed. The incidence of hospital-acquired PIs at stage 1 or higher was reported in the APM group from 0.3% to 25%. In one study, APMs were found to be less effective than static air mattresses (SAMs); in contrast, two studies found no difference. In one study, the APM was reported to be more effective than the viscoelastic foam mattress (VFM). On the contrary, in a more recent study, the APM was reported to be less effective than the VFM, and there was no difference compared with high-specification foam mattresses in another study. Using the RoB 2.0 tool, one study was evaluated at "low risk of bias," another as "some concern," and four as "high risk."

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that APM is more effective in preventing PIs than other supporting surfaces. Evidence to date suggests that APM can be used in patients at risk for PIs. It is important to change position regardless of the type of support surface used. Highly controlled RCTs with low risk of bias are needed to provide strong evidence for identifying the most effective PI prevention support surfaces.

Pressure redistributing static chairs for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Sitting can be viewed as a therapeutic intervention and an important part of a person's recovery process; but the risk of ulceration must be mitigated. Interventions for ulcer prevention in those at risk from prolonged sitting include the use of specialist cushions and surfaces, especially for wheelchair users. Whilst there is interest in the effects of different pressure redistributing cushions for wheelchairs, the benefits of pressure redistributing static chairs, compared with standard chairs, for pressure ulcer development in at-risk people are not clear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pressure redistributing static chairs on the prevention of pressure ulcers in health, rehabilitation and social care settings, and places of residence in which people may spend their day.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2021 we searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). We also searched clinical trials registers for ongoing and unpublished studies, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports. There were no restrictions by language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include published or unpublished randomised controlled trials that assessed pressure redistributing static chairs in the prevention or management of pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection. We planned that two review authors would also assess the risk of bias, extract study data and assess the certainty of evidence according to GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies that met the review eligibility criteria, nor any registered studies investigating the role of pressure redistributing static chairs in the prevention or management of pressure ulcers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no randomised evidence that supports or refutes the role of pressure redistributing static chairs in the prevention or management of pressure ulcers. This is a priority area and there is a need to explore this intervention with rigorous and robust research.

The prevention of pressure injuries in the positioning and mobilization of patients in the ICU: a good clinical practice document by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this document is to support clinical decision-making concerning positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient in the early identification and resolution of risk factors (primary prevention) and in the early recognition of those most at risk (secondary prevention). The addresses of this document are physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and other professionals involved in patient positioning in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A consensus pathway was followed using the Nominal Focus Group and the Delphi Technique, integrating a phase of focused group discussion online and with a pre-coded guide to an individual phase. A multidisciplinary advisory board composed by nine experts on the topic contributed to both the phases of the process, to reach a consensus on four clinical questions positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient.

RESULTS

The topics addressed by the clinical questions were the risks associated with obligatory positioning and therapeutic positions, the effective interventions in preventing pressure injuries, the appropriate instruments for screening for pressure injuries in the ICU, and the cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions relating to ICU positioning. A total of 27 statements addressing these clinical questions were produced by the panel. Among the statements, nine provided guidance on how to manage safely some specific patients' positions, including the prone position; five suggested specific screening tools and patients' factors to consider when assessing the individual risk of developing pressure injuries; five gave indications on mobilization and repositioning; and eight focused on the use of devices, such as positioners and preventive dressings.

CONCLUSIONS

The statements may represent a practical guidance for a broad public of healthcare professionals involved in the management of critically ill patients.

Support surfaces for intraoperative pressure injury prevention: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate evidence on effectiveness support surfaces for pressure injury prevention in the intraoperative period.

METHOD

systematic review. The search for primary studies was conducted in seven databases. The sample consisted of 10 studies. The synthesis of the results was carried out descriptively and through meta-analysis.

RESULTS

when comparing low-tech support surfaces with regular care (standard surgical table mattress), the meta-analysis showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the investigated interventions (Relative Risk = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.30-2.39). The Higgins inconsistency test indicated considerable heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 83%). The assessment of the certainty of the evidence was very low. When comparing high-tech and low-tech support surfaces, the meta-analysis showed that there is a statistically significant difference between the interventions studied, with high-tech being the most effective (Relative Risk = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.05-0.53). Heterogeneity can be classified as not important (I2 = 0%). The assessment of certainty of evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSION

the use of high-tech support surfaces is an effective measure to prevent pressure injuries in the intraoperative period.

Pressure injury prevention practices among medical surgical nurses in a tertiary hospital: An observational and chart audit study

Pressure injuries are frequently occurring adverse events in hospitals, negatively impacting patient safety and quality of care. Most pressure injuries are avoidable if effective prevention strategies are used. However, the extent to which various settings influence their use of prevention strategies is unknown. The aim of this study was to describe and compare pressure injury prevention strategies used by medical and surgical nurses in the Chinese context. In this observational study, we used semi-structured observations with chart audits to collect data in two medical and two surgical wards in a tertiary hospital from June to December 2020. Observations were patient-focused; any prevention practices the patient received were recorded, and a chart audit was used to identify documented prevention strategies. The frequency of each prevention strategy was reported, and differences between medical and surgical wards were analysed using independent t-test or χ² test. A total of 577 patients (n = 294, 50.9% medical; n = 283, 49.1% surgical) were observed and their charts audited. Risk assessment was completed on admission for all patients. Repositioning was the most frequently used strategy, with about 84% (n = 486) patients being repositioned regularly. However, skin care, nutritional risk screening and the use of support surfaces were suboptimal. Patient education was not commonly observed but was documented in 75% (n = 433) of audited charts. More medical patients' skin was kept clean and hydrated, but more surgical patients received barrier creams, had a support surface and received more nutrition support and if a prone position was used, they were more likely to be turned after 2 hr and to be repositioned after sitting in a chair for an hour. Prevention strategies were more likely to be documented in surgical patients' charts. Despite pressure injury prevention guideline recommendations provided various prevention strategies for nurses to apply, the observed use of some strategies such as nutrition, skin care and support surfaces was not ideal. Nurses relied heavily on repositioning for pressure injury prevention. Most pressure injury prevention practices need improvement although surgical patients generally received better preventative care. These findings can facilitate clinicians and nurse managers when tailoring future pressure injury prevention work.

Comparison of interface pressures in two dynamic pressure ulcer prevention supports (NIMBUS 3 and SUMMIT): A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are a risk for bedridden patients and various supports exist to prevent them. The Pressure Relief Index (PRI) evaluates pressure relief of dynamic mattresses over time. This study compared the PRI of the SUMMIT mattress (AKS-France) and the NIMBUS 3 (HNE Medical).

METHODS

In this non-blinded, randomized, crossover, non-inferiority study, patients aged ≥60 with a BMI of 16-35 kg/m2, predominantly confined to bed, able to walk with aid and with pelvic symmetry were recruited from a hospital rehabilitation department from March-April 2012. Exclusion criteria included past or present pressure ulcers, inability to remain supine and deep vein thrombosis. Peak pressures of the sacrum were recorded at 0.1 Hz during a single complete 10-min inflating cycle on both mattresses, with the order determined via electronic randomization allocation.

RESULTS

Thirty-one subjects were included and randomized; with 14 finally analyzed in the SUMMIT-NIBMUS 3 order group and 16 in the NIMBUS 3-SUMMIT group. The difference in PRI <30 mmHg between the two mattresses was 13.2% [0.3-26.1] (p < 0.05), allowing a non-inferiority - superiority switch. The SUMMIT mattress demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of time <30 mmHg (p = 0.0454). No significant difference in mean minimal pressure was seen (p = 0.3231) and mean maximal pressure was in favor of SUMMIT mattress (p = 0.0096). BMI did not affect pressure profile. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluated by the PRI, the SUMMIT mattress had a better interface pressure profile than the NIMBUS 3 in older patients. The PRI is a promising tool for clinical decision-making and research, warranting validation.

Beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing and treating pressure ulcers: an overview of Cochrane Reviews and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.

METHODS

In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.

Longitudinal In-Bed Pressure Signals Decomposition and Gradients Analysis for Pressure Injury Monitoring

Pressure injury (PI) is a major problem for patients that are bound to a wheelchair or bed, such as seniors or people with spinal cord injuries. This condition can be life threatening in its later stages. It can be very costly to the healthcare system as well. Fortunately with proper monitoring and assessment, PI development can be prevented. The major factor that causes PI is prolonged interface pressure between the body and the support surface. A possible solution to reduce the chance of developing PI is changing the patient's in-bed pose at appropriate times. Monitoring in-bed pressure can help healthcare providers to locate high-pressure areas, and remove or minimize pressure on those regions. The current clinical method of interface pressure monitoring is limited by periodic snapshot assessments, without longitudinal measurements and analysis. In this paper we propose a pressure signal analysis pipeline to automatically eliminate external artefacts from pressure data, estimate a person's pose, and locate and track high-risk regions over time so that necessary attention can be provided.

Evaluation of interface pressure and temperature management in five wheelchair seat cushions and their effects on user satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Factors such as the manufacturing materials, shape or even the mechanical and thermal response of sitting Pressure Redistribution Support Surfaces (PRSS) can be potential contributors to pressure ulcers. However, few studies have compared a number of characteristics of the most frequently used devices.

OBJECTIVE

To compare three potential contributors to pressure ulcers in five commercial PRSS: pressure redistribution, temperature and perceived comfort.

METHOD

Study with a cross-over randomized design in healthy volunteer participants. Data was collected in a temperature and relative humidity controlled environment. To assess thermal response, the temperature (Flir-E60) of the region of interest was captured before and after use of each PRSS for further analysis. The region of interest was the gluteal zone. To assess the pressure redistribution a pressure mat (XSensor®) was used between the 5 cushion and each study participant using a standardized method. Finally, a subjective perception questionnaire recorded comfort, adaptability and thermal sensation parameters. Data analysis levels of significance were set at 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 22 participants completed the assessments. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline temperatures between PRSS (>0.05). Pressure redistribution analysis showed significant differences between all PRSS in all variables evaluated except in the maximum and peak pressure index al sacrum. The subjective assessment suggested no major user-perceived differences between PRSS.

CONCLUSION

Seat cushions made of open cell polyurethane foam blocks of variable hardness and the horseshoe cushion (also open cell polyurethane foam) seem to provide a more effective pressure relief characteristic than those injected with polyurethane foam and gel in most of the studied pressure variables. However, the cushions provide similar thermal response and perceived comfort.

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I² = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I² = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Beds, overlays or mattresses are widely used with the aim of treating pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on pressure ulcer healing in people with pressure ulcers of any stage, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to pressure-redistributing beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for treating pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (972 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 72 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 64.0 to 86.5 years (median: 82.7 years) and all studies recruited people with existing pressure ulcers (the baseline ulcer area size ranging from 4.2 to 18.6 cm2,median 6.6 cm2). Participants were recruited from acute care settings (six studies) and community and long-term care settings (seven studies). Of the 13 studies, three (224 participants) involved surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. Additionally, six (46.2%) of the 13 studies presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. We synthesised data for four comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and a comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces. We summarise key findings for these four comparisons below. (1) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces: we are uncertain if there is a difference between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants whose pressure ulcers completely healed (two studies with 132 participants; the reported risk ratio (RR) in one study was 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 3.58). There is also uncertainty for the outcomes of patient comfort (one study with 83 participants) and adverse events (one study with 49 participants). These outcomes have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (2) Reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportion of participants with completely healed pressure ulcers between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). When time to complete pressure ulcer healing is considered using a hazard ratio, data from one small study (84 participants) suggests a greater hazard for complete ulcer healing on reactive air surfaces (hazard ratio 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). These results are sensitive to the choice of outcome measure so should be interpreted as uncertain. We are also uncertain whether there is any difference between these surfaces in patient comfort responses (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in adverse events (2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence that reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use (1 study, 87 participants). Included studies did not report health-related quality of life. (3) Reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between reactive water surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 1 study, 101 participants) and in adverse events (1 study, 120 participants). All these have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, patient comfort, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (4) Comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between Nimbus and Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers, in patient comfort responses and in adverse events: each of these outcomes had four studies (256 participants) but very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the relative effects of most different pressure-redistributing surfaces for pressure ulcer healing (types directly compared are alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and Nimbus versus Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces). There is also uncertainty regarding the effects of these different surfaces on the outcomes of comfort and adverse events. However, people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have pressure ulcers completely healed than those using foam surfaces over 37.5 days' follow-up, and reactive air surfaces may cost more for each ulcer-free day than foam surfaces. Future research in this area could consider the evaluation of alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces as a high priority. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of reactive air beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to reactive air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for preventing pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a reactive air surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then we recorded and described the concerned study but did not included it in further data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies (2604 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average participant age ranged from 56 to 87 years (median: 72 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings with the majority being acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in the regions of Europe and America. Of the 17 included studies, two (223 participants) compared reactive air surfaces with surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. We analysed data for five comparisons: reactive air surfaces compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (seven studies with 1728 participants), (2) foam surfaces (four studies with 229 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive gel surfaces (one study with 66 participants), and (5) another type of reactive air surface (two studies with 223 participants). Of the 17 studies, seven (41.2%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.96; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer on reactive air surfaces compared with: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (6 studies, 1648 participants); reactive water surfaces (1 study, 37 participants); reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 66 participants), or another type of reactive air surface (2 studies, 223 participants). Evidence for all these comparisons is of very low certainty. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for two comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer incidence is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), low-certainty evidence suggests that in the nursing home setting, people on reactive air surfaces may be less likely to develop a new pressure ulcer over 14 days' of follow-up than people on alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; 1 study, 308 participants). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies have data on this outcome for three comparisons. We could not pool any data as comfort outcome measures differed between included studies; therefore a narrative summary is provided. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces over the top of an alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants), and between those using reactive air surfaces and those using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (4 studies, 1364 participants). Evidence for these two comparisons is of very low certainty. It is also uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there were data on this outcome for one comparison: it is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies have no data for health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness for all five comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is uncertain regarding any differences in the relative effects of reactive air surfaces on ulcer incidence and patient comfort, when compared with reactive water surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, or another type of reactive air surface. Using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with using foam surfaces. Also, using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers within 14 days compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in people in a nursing home setting. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Combination treatment of dendrosomal nanocurcumin and low-level laser therapy develops proliferation and migration of mouse embryonic fibroblasts and alter TGF-β, VEGF, TNF-α and IL-6 expressions involved in wound healing process

INTRODUCTION

Pressure ulcer (PU) is known as the third most costly disorder usually caused by prolonged pressure and stagnation in various parts of the body. Although several therapeutic approaches are employing, obstacles in appropriate healing for skin lesions still exist which necessitates new practical alternative or adjunctive treatments. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) as one of the mentioned new strategies have gained attention. Besides, curcumin is an herbal medicine extracted from turmeric with anti-inflammatory and antioxidative properties with promising beneficial therapeutic effects in wound healing. Employing dendrosomal nanoparticles, we overcome the hydrophobicity of curcumin in the present study. We hypothesized that combination treatment of DNC+LLLT (450 nm) simultaneously may promote the wound healing process.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MTT assay, PI staining followed by flowcytometry, scratch assay and intracellular ROS measurement were used to investigate the effects caused by DNC and LLLT (450 nm) alone and in combination, on proliferation, cell cycle, migration and oxidative stress mouse embryonic fibroblast cells, respectively. The levels of growth factors and pro-inflammatory cytokines were evaluated by qRT-PCR and ELISA.

RESULTS

Our results indicated that combination exposure with DNC and LLLT leads to increased proliferation and migration of MEFs as well as being more efficient in significantly upregulating growth factors (TGF-β, VEGF) and decline in inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6). Moreover, findings of this research provide persuasive support for the notion that DNC could reduce the LLLT-induced enhancement in intracellular ROS in mouse embryonic fibroblasts.

CONCLUSION

Concurrent exposure to anti-oxidant concentrations of DNC and LLLT enriched S phase entry and therefor increased proliferation as well as migration on MEFs through regulating the expression levels growth factors and shortening the inflammatory phase by modulating of cytokines. It should be noted that DNC were able to reduce the laser-induced oxidative stress, during wound healing, representing an informative accompaniment with LLLT.

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Foam surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of foam beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to foam beds, mattresses or overlays. Comparators were any beds, mattresses or overlays.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a foam surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (9566 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 101 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 47.0 to 85.3 years (median: 76.0 years). Participants were mainly from acute care settings. We analysed data for seven comparisons in the review: foam surfaces compared with: (1) alternating pressure air surfaces, (2) reactive air surfaces, (3) reactive fibre surfaces, (4) reactive gel surfaces, (5) reactive foam and gel surfaces, (6) reactive water surfaces, and (7) another type of foam surface. Of the 29 included studies, 17 (58.6%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

pressure ulcer incidence Low-certainty evidence suggests that foam surfaces may increase the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 2.95; I2 = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants), and (2) reactive air surfaces (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.54; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants). We are uncertain regarding the difference in pressure ulcer incidence in people treated with foam surfaces and the following surfaces: (1) reactive fibre surfaces (1 study, 68 participants); (2) reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 135 participants); (3) reactive gel and foam surfaces (1 study, 91 participants); and (4) another type of foam surface (6 studies, 733 participants). These had very low-certainty evidence. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer development for two comparisons. When time to ulcer development is considered using hazard ratios, the difference in the risk of having new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces is uncertain (2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two further studies comparing different types of foam surfaces also reported time-to-event data, suggesting that viscoelastic foam surfaces with a density of 40 to 60 kg/m3 may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over 11.5 days' follow-up compared with foam surfaces with a density of 33 kg/m3 (1 study, 62 participants); and solid foam surfaces may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over one month's follow-up compared with convoluted foam surfaces (1 study, 84 participants). Both had low-certainty evidence. There was no analysable data for the comparison of foam surfaces with reactive water surfaces (one study with 117 participants). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the review contains data for three comparisons for this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort measure between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces (1 study, 76 participants; very low-certainty evidence); foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and different types of foam surfaces (4 studies, 669 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: the review contains data for two comparisons for this outcome. We are uncertain about differences in adverse effects between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (3 studies, 2181 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life: only one study reported data on this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference (low-certainty evidence) between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in health-related quality of life measured with two different questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L (267 participants) and the PU-QoL-UI (233 participants). Cost-effectiveness: one study reported trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing pressure ulcer incidence (2029 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests uncertainty about the differences in pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse events and health-related quality of life between using foam surfaces and other surfaces (reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, reactive foam and gel surfaces, or reactive water surfaces). Foam surfaces may increase pressure ulcer incidence compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive air surfaces. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and by blinding adjudicators of the photographs to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non-foam and non-air-filled) for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive surfaces that are not made of foam or air cells can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-foam and non-air-filled reactive beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any other support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to non-foam or non-air-filled reactive beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses used.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a non-foam or non-air-filled surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies (4653 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 198 participants). The average participant age ranged from 37.2 to 85.4 years (median: 72.5 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings but were mainly from acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in Europe and America. Of the 20 studies, 11 (2826 participants) included surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be fully classified. We synthesised data for the following 12 comparisons: (1) reactive water surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (three studies with 414 participants), (2) reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 117 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 87 participants), (5) reactive fibre surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (four studies with 384 participants), (6) reactive fibre surfaces versus foam surfaces (two studies with 228 participants), (7) reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds (two studies with 415 participants), (8) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 74 participants), (9) reactive gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 135 participants), (10) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 113 participants), (11) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 166 participants) and (12) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 91 participants). Of the 20 studies, 16 (80%) presented findings which were considered to be at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Pressure ulcer incidence We did not find analysable data for two comparisons: reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (14/205 (6.8%)) may increase the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (3/210 (1.4%) (risk ratio 4.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 15.65; 2 studies, 415 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For all other comparisons, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing new pressure ulcers as all data were of very low certainty. Included studies did not report time to pressure ulcer incidence for any comparison in this review. Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies provide data on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there is evidence on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive gel surfaces followed by foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (one study with 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find any health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness evidence for any comparison in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is generally uncertain about the differences between non-foam and non-air-filled reactive surfaces and other surfaces in terms of pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds may increase the risk of having new pressure ulcers compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Impact of structured educational interventions on the prevention of pressure ulcers in immobile orthopedic patients in India: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcer (PU) is one of the common, neglected and avoidable complications among bedridden patients. Despite the potential to reduce PU incidence, the evidence on the effect of patient/caregiver education is low. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (CTRI/2011/07/001862) compared the impact of two structured educational interventions to patients and caregivers on prevention of PU in immobile orthopaedic patients.

METHODOLOGY

Ninety-two orthopedically immobile patients (Braden score ≤12 or stage I PU) and their caregivers were (block) randomized into two equal groups. One group was offered Prevention Package 1 (PP1), i.e., self-instruction manual (SIM), one to one training and counselling on PU care practices. The second group (PP2) was given SIM only. Patients were followed equally at the hospital and home after discharge. Intention to treat analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of PU was 8.7% in PP1 and 21.7% in PP2 for the entire study period. PU incidence rate in PP1 and PP2 was 0.9 and 2.41 per 1000 person-days, respectively. Incidence rate ratio was 2.67 (95% CI: 0.89, 8.02, p-0.04). The Kaplan-Meier survival curves of PP1 and PP2 were statistically significantly different (p-0.043). PP1 also showed statistically significant improvement in knowledge on the prevention and management of PU compared to PP2 at post-intervention (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Individualized, structured education of patients and caregiver is effective in improving the knowledge and preventing the PU in immobile orthopaedic patients. A comprehensive approach involving hospital administrators, health care professionals, patients and caregivers may be further researched upon for a sustainable reduction in PU.

The Risk Factors-Based Nursing Case Management Could Effectively Reduce the Incidence of Pressure Sores in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

To explore the effects of risk factors-based nursing management on the occurrence of pressure sores in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

From Jan 2018 to Jun 2018, 289 hospitalized patients were divided into pressure sores group [100] and control group [189] for retrospective analysis. Overall, 260 hospitalized patients from Jun 2018 to Dec 2018 were followed up for nursing intervention. Overall 130 patients received risk factors-based nursing case management were in the intervention group, whereas 130 patients who received routine nursing care were in the control group. The chi-square test and t-test were used to compare the count data and the measurement data between groups, respectively.

RESULTS

Age, body weight and proportions of patients with impaired nutritional intake, diabetes or stroke in pressure sores group were higher than those in normal group (P<0.05). Hospital stay and operative time in pressure sores group was longer than those in normal group (P<0.05). The frequency of assistant activity in pressure sores group was significantly lower than that in control group (P<0.05).In addition, the score of uroclepsia in pressure sores group was lower than that in normal group (P<0.05). Patients in the intervention group showed lower risk for pressure sores and more satisfied than patients in control group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Advanced age, high body weight, diabetes and stroke, long hospital stay, long operative time, poor nutritional status and severe uroclepsia were independent risk factors of pressure sores. Risk factors-based nursing case management can effectively reduce the occurrence and risk of pressure sores for hospitalized patients.

An Experimental Intervention Study Assessing the Impact of a Thin Silicone Gel Surface Overlay on Interface Pressure

Introduction

The incidence of pressure ulcers (PUs) presents a substantial threat to patients, especially geriatric patients, those with restricted mobility, and patients suffering from chronic diseases such as cancer. PUs creates a huge financial burden on healthcare authorities and patients, costing billions to treat and manage. Radiography and radiotherapy patients may experience medical device related (MDR) PUs and studies have shown that high interface pressure (IP) values exist for the head when placed on an X-ray table without a mattress. These high IP values pose a PU risk to patients, especially those accessing prolonged radiography/radiology and radiotherapy procedures. The current study assessed the impact on IP values for the head from using a thin silicone gel surface overlay during radiographic procedures and identified whether this reduced the risk of PUs.

Materials and Methods

A calibrated XSENSOR pressure mat was used to measure IP for the head on an X-ray table with and without a thin silicone gel surface overlay. Prior to pressure mapping, the silicone gel surface overlay was assessed for its impact on radiation attenuation and image quality.

Results

Study participants were 14 males (70%) and six females (30%), with an age range of 25-53 years (mean = 34.4 ± 7.0). Paired-samples t-test results indicated that there was a statistically significant decrease in the mean IP for the head on the X-ray table without the silicone gel surface overlay (mean = 83.9 ± 8.2 in mmHg) and the X-ray table with the gel surface overlay (mean = 62.4 ± 6.1 in mmHg), p ≤ 0.001. Paired-samples t-test results indicated that there was a statistically significant decrease in the mean peak pressure index (PPI) for the head on the X-ray table without the silicone gel surface overlay (mean = 205.1 ± 28.2 in mmHg) and the X-ray table with the gel surface overlay (mean = 159.8 ± 26.8 in mmHg), p ≤ 0.001.

Conclusions

The use of a thin silicone gel surface overlay could reduce IP risk for the head by approximately 25%. The reduction in IP risk could have a significant impact in reducing the risk of developing a PU. To ensure maximum benefit, the silicone gel surface overlay should be evaluated to address the specific needs within radiography and radiotherapy planning and treatment settings.

Textile-integrated polymer optical fibers for healthcare and medical applications

With ever growing interest in far-reaching solutions for pervasive healthcare and medicine, polymer optical fibers have been rendered into textile forms. Having both fiber-optic functionalities and traditional fabric-like comfort, textile-integrated polymer optical fibers have been advocated to remove the technical barriers for long-term uninterrupted health monitoring and treatment. In this context, this paper spotlights and reviews the recently developed textile-integrated polymer optical fibers in conjunction with fabrication techniques, applications in long-term continuous health monitoring and treatment, and future perspectives in the vision of mobile health (mHealth), as well as the introductory basics of polymer optical fibers. It is designed to serve as a topical guidepost for scientists and engineers on this highly interdisciplinary and rapidly growing topic.

A Primary Care Provider's Guide to Prevention and Management of Pressure Injury and Skin Breakdown in People With Spinal Cord Injury

Skin breakdown, including burns and pressure injuries (PrIs), is a devastating complication of spinal cord injury (SCI). Chronic wounds place the person with SCI at high risk of infections, sepsis, and death. Skin health and breakdown is individual and multifactorial, thus prevention requires individualized education focused on patient preferences and goals. Assessment requires an accurate description of wound type/PrI stage, location, size, wound bed, wound margin, epithelialization, exudate, and peri-wound condition. PrIs should be staged using the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) staging system. Successful treatment requires optimal wound bed preparation, pressure off-loading, and access to surgical specialists if needed. Mattress and seating systems, pressure relief, skin microclimate, nutrition, and home supports should be optimized. To promote wound healing and aid prevention, identifiable causes need to be removed, risk factors improved, and wound care provided. Infection should be treated with input from infectious disease specialists. Consideration for specialized surgical management including flaps and primary closures should be coordinated with the interdisciplinary team to optimize outcomes. If comorbid conditions promote wound chronicity, a palliative rather than curative treatment plan may be needed.

Relationship between a pressure redistributing foam mattress and pressure injuries: An observational prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Pressure injuries remain a significant health care issue in various settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between a pressure redistributing foam mattress (PRFM) and the development of pressure injuries.

METHODS

This study employed an observational prospective cohort study design. We enrolled 254 participants from the intensive care unit who were at risk of developing pressure injuries. Participants were exposed to either a nonpressure redistributing foam mattress (NPRFM), which was the standard mattress used at the study site, or a PRFM made of viscoelastic, temperature-sensitive, polyurethane memory foam. The patients' assignment to either a PRFM or NPRFM was performed upon their admission, before the study eligibility screening. The relationship between the PRFM and the development of pressure injuries was studied using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pressure injuries was 5.9% (15/254) in our study, with 1.6% (2/127) for participants who used a PRFM and 10.2% (13/127) for those using a NPRFM. After adjusting for potential confounding variables, use of a PRFM was associated with an 88% reduced risk of pressure injury development (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.56, P = 0.007). The use of a PRFM also contributed to a postponed occurrence of pressure injuries by 4.2 days on average in comparison with that of a NPRFM (P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

A PRFM is associated with a significantly reduced incidence and postponed occurrence of pressure injuries. It is recommended to use a PRFM for patients at risk of developing pressure injuries.

Prevention and treatment of pressure injuries: A meta-synthesis of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

There are many high-quality systematic reviews to inform practice around pressure injury (PI) prevention and treatment. However, they are often unable to provide recommendations for practice and research due to low quality trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate current systematic review evidence on the prevention and treatment of PI.

METHODS

This meta-synthesis was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only Cochrane Reviews were included. Evidence from reviews was independently screened and assessed for risk of bias and certainty using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations by two authors, with a third resolving discrepancies. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using the second version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, and a narrative synthesis undertaken.

RESULTS

Twenty-five Cochrane Reviews were included; eight for PI prevention and 19 for PI treatment. Prevention reviews included 102 studies (27,933 participants). Treatment reviews included 154 studies (over 16,936 participants). Three prevention reviews and nine treatment reviews reported risk of bias, judging the included trials as having low or very low certainty evidence. Two reviews reported moderate certainty evidence. Methodological quality of the systematic reviews was rated as high for eight reviews (7/19 for treatment and 1/6 for prevention). Recommendations for prevention included repositioning, nutrition and support surfaces. Recommendations for treatment focused on nutrition and repositioning.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-synthesis confirms the low-certainty of PI prevention and treatment trials, resulting in few recommendations to inform clinical practice. Generation of high-quality evidence on PI prevention and treatment is imperative.

International consensus on pressure injury preventative interventions by risk level for critically ill patients: A modified Delphi study

The aim of this modified Delphi study was to determine a minimum pressure injury preventative intervention set for implementation relative to critically ill patients' risk level. Preventative interventions were identified via systematic review, risk levels categorised by an intensive-care-specific risk-assessment-scale (COMHON Index), and panel members (n = 67) identified through an international critical care nursing body. Round 1: panel members were asked to rate implementation of 12 interventions according to risk level (low, moderate, high). Round 2: interventions were rated for use at the risk level which received greatest round 1 support. Round 3: interventions not yet achieving consensus were again rated, and discarded where consensus was not reached. Consensus indicated all patients should receive: risk assessment within 2-hours of admission; 8-hourly risk reassessment; and use of disposable incontinence pads. Additionally, moderate- and high-risk patients should receive: a reactive mattress support surface and a heel off-loading device. High-risk patients should also receive: nutritional supplements if eating orally; preventative dressings (sacral, heel, trochanteric); an active mattress support surface; and a pressure-redistributing cushion for sitting. Repositioning is required at least 4-hourly for low-risk, and 2-hourly for moderate- and high-risk patients. Rigorous application of the intervention set has the potential to decrease pressure injuries in intensive care.

An exploration of nursing home residents' experiences of a non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers

Pressure ulcers are injuries to the skin and underlying tissue and are associated with a negative impact on well-being and health-related quality of life. This explorative, qualitative study aimed to explore the true meaning of elderly nursing home residents' perspectives and critical success factors when implementing a new non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers. Individual, loosely structured interviews were conductedin 12 nursing homes in Flanders, the Northern region of Belgium, a convenience sampling of 14 nursing home residents were selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chair-bound, aged >65 years, and use of an alternating air pressure mattress previous to the application of the non-powered static air mattress overlay. Interviews were conducted in the participants' personal rooms between June 2017 and March 2018. Interviews included broad, open-ended questions, to invite and encourage participants to openly discuss their perspectives and experiences. Participants were interviewed once during the 14-day observation period between day 3 and day 14. All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed by an experienced transcriber. Interviews were read several times to reveal emerging patterns and were marked with codes into NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software. During the process, (sub) themes were discussed by the authors until a consensus was reached. Three main themes emerged from the analysis process: rest and sleep; mobility; and discomfort and pain associated with the use of the support surface. Themes were divided into multiple subthemes: motion, noise, sensation, repositioning, and transfer in and out of bed. Through interviews, critical success factors associated with the implementation were identified, including the lack of information and time needed to evaluate the functionality and effects of a new mattress overlay. Implementation of a non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers has a far-reaching impact on nursing home residents' experiences. This study provides insight into the true meaning of patients' perspectives by focusing on learning from the patients' experiences that provide valuable information for healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

S116: Impact of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infection after complex incisional hernia repair: a retrospective matched cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) may reduce surgical site infections (SSI), which can have devastating consequences after incisional hernia repair. Few comparative studies investigate the effectiveness of this wound management strategy in this population. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of iNPWT on the incidence of SSI after complex incisional hernia repair.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing open incisional hernia repair at a single center from 2016 to 2019 were reviewed. A commercial iNPWT dressing was used at the discretion of the surgeon. Patients were grouped by type of dressing; iNPWT and standard sterile dressings (SSD). Coarsened exact matching was used to create balanced cohorts for comparison using age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, wound classification, and surgical urgency. The primary outcome was the composite incidence of superficial and deep SSI within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included non-infectious surgical site occurrences (SSO), overall complications, length of stay (LOS), emergency department visits, and readmission at 30 days.

RESULTS

134 patients underwent complex hernia repair, with 114 patients included after matching (34 iNPWT, 51 SSD). Composite incidence of superficial and deep SSI was 19.3% (11.8% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.107), with significantly lower rates of deep SSI in patients receiving iNPWT (2.9% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.045). After accounting for residual differences between groups, iNPWT was associated with decreased incidence of composite SSI (RR 0.36, 95% CI [0.16, 0.87]). Median LOS was longer in patients with iNPWT (7 vs. 5 days, p = 0.001). There were no differences in SSO, overall complications, readmission, or emergency department visits.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing incisional hernia repair, the use of iNPWT was associated with a lower incidence of SSI at 30 days. Future studies should focus on cost effectiveness of iNPWT, its impact on long-term hernia recurrences, and the identification of patient selection criteria in this population.

Repositioning for pressure injury prevention in adults

BACKGROUND

A pressure injury (PI), also referred to as a 'pressure ulcer', or 'bedsore', is an area of localised tissue damage caused by unrelieved pressure, friction, or shearing on any part of the body. Immobility is a major risk factor and manual repositioning a common prevention strategy. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of repositioning regimens(i.e. repositioning schedules and patient positions) on the prevention of PI in adults regardless of risk in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus on 12 February 2019. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials (c-RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PI incidence in adults in any setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five additional trials and one economic substudy in this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of eight trials involving 3941 participants from acute and long-term care settings and two economic substudies in the review. Six studies reported the proportion of participants developing PI of any stage. Two of the eight trials reported within-trial cost evaluations. Follow-up periods were short (24 hours to 21 days). All studies were at high risk of bias. Funding sources were reported in five trials. Primary outcomes: proportion of new PI of any stage Repositioning frequencies: three trials compared different repositioning frequencies We pooled data from three trials (1074 participants) comparing 2-hourly with 4-hourly repositioning frequencies (fixed-effect; I² = 45%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.41). It is uncertain whether 2-hourly repositioning compared with 4-hourly repositioning used in conjunction with any support surface increases or decreases the incidence of PI. The certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, downgraded twice for risk of bias, and once for imprecision. One of these trials had three arms (967 participants) comparing 2-hourly, 3-hourly, and 4-hourly repositioning regimens on high-density mattresses; data for one comparison was included in the pooled analysis. Another comparison was based on 2-hourly versus 3-hourly repositioning. The RR for PI incidence was 4.06 (95% CI 0.87 to 18.98). The third study comparison was based on 3-hourly versus 4-hourly repositioning (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92). The certainty of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision. In one c-RCT, 262 participants in 32 ward clusters were randomised between 2-hourly and 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattresses and 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic mattresses. The RR for PI with 2-hourly repositioning compared with 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattress is imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16; very low-certainty evidence). The CI for PI include both a large reduction and no difference for the comparison of 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02). The certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded twice due to high risk of bias, and once for imprecision. Positioning regimens: four trials compared different tilt positions We pooled data from two trials (252 participants) that compared a 30° tilt with a 90° tilt (random-effects; I² = 69%). There was no clear difference in the incidence of stage 1 or 2 PI. The effect of tilt is uncertain because the certainty of evidence is very low (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97), downgraded due to serious design limitations and very serious imprecision. One trial involving 120 participants compared 30° tilt and 45° tilt with 'usual care' and reported no occurrence of PI events (low certainty evidence). Another trial involving 116 ICU patients compared prone with the usual supine positioning for PI. Reporting was incomplete and this is low certainty evidence. Secondary outcomes No studies reported health-related quality of life utility scores, procedural pain, or patient satisfaction. Cost analysis Two included trials also performed economic analyses. A cost-minimisation analysis compared the costs of 3-hourly and 4-hourly repositioning with 2-hourly repositioning schedule amongst nursing home residents. The cost of repositioning was estimated at CAD 11.05 and CAD 16.74 less per resident per day for the 3-hourly or 4-hourly regimen, respectively, compared with the 2-hourly regimen. The estimates of economic benefit were driven mostly by the value of freed nursing time. The analysis assumed that 2-, 3-, or 4-hourly repositioning is associated with a similar incidence of PI, as no difference in incidence was observed. A second study compared the nursing time cost of 3-hourly repositioning using a 30° tilt with standard care (6-hourly repositioning with a 90° lateral rotation) amongst nursing home residents. The intervention was reported to be cost-saving compared with standard care (nursing time cost per patient EUR 206.60 versus EUR 253.10, incremental difference EUR -46.50, 95% CI EUR -1.25 to EUR -74.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the addition of five trials, the results of this update are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty. There remains a lack of robust evaluations of repositioning frequency and positioning for PI prevention and uncertainty about their effectiveness. Since all comparisons were underpowered, there is a high level of uncertainty in the evidence base. Given the limited data from economic evaluations, it remains unclear whether repositioning every three hours using the 30° tilt versus "usual care" (90° tilt) or repositioning 3-to-4-hourly versus 2-hourly is less costly relative to nursing time.

Effects of a pressure-ulcer audit and feedback regional programme at 1 and 2 years in nursing homes: A prospective longitudinal study

INTRODUCTION

Pressure ulcer is a frequent complication in patients hospitalized in nursing homes and has a serious impact on quality of life and overall health. Moreover, ulcer treatment is highly expensive. Several studies have shown that pressure ulcer prevention is cost-effective. Audit and feedback programmes can help improve professional practices in pressure ulcer prevention and thus reduce their occurrence. The aim of this study was to analyze, with a prospective longitudinal study, the effectiveness of an audit and feedback programme at 1- and 2-year follow-up for reducing pressure ulcer prevalence and enhancing adherence to preventive practices in nursing homes.

METHODS

Pressure ulcer point prevalence and preventive practices were measured in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in nursing homes of the Canton of Geneva (Switzerland). Oral and written feedback was provided 2 months after every survey to nursing home reference nurses.

RESULTS

A total of 27 nursing homes participated in the programme in 2015 and 2016 (4607 patients) and 15 continued in 2017 (1357 patients). Patients were mostly females, with mean age > 86 years and median length of stay about 2 years. The programme significantly improved two preventive measures: patient repositioning and anti-decubitus bed or mattress. It also reduced acquired pressure ulcers prevalence in nursing homes that participated during all 3 years (from 4.5% in 2015 to 2.9% in 2017, p 0.035), especially in those with more patients with pressure ulcers.

CONCLUSION

Audit and feedback is relatively easy to implement at the regional level in nursing homes and can enhance adherence to preventive measures and reduce pressure ulcers prevalence in the homes.