Intraoperative pressure sore prevention: an analysis of bedding materials

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.

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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional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.

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.

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.

Protecting prone positioned patients from facial pressure ulcers using prophylactic dressings: A timely biomechanical analysis in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Prone positioning is used for surgical access and recently in exponentially growing numbers of coronavirus disease 2019 patients who are ventilated prone. To reduce their facial pressure ulcer risk, prophylactic dressings can be used; however, the biomechanical efficacy of this intervention has not been studied yet. We, therefore, evaluated facial soft tissue exposures to sustained mechanical loads in a prone position, with versus without multi‐layered silicone foam dressings applied as tissue protectors at the forehead and chin. We used an anatomically realistic validated finite element model of an adult male head to determine the contribution of the dressings to the alleviation of the sustained tissue loads. The application of the dressings considerably relieved the tissue exposures to loading. Specifically, with respect to the forehead, the application of a dressing resulted in 52% and 71% reductions in soft tissue exposures to effective stresses and strain energy densities, respectively. Likewise, a chin dressing lowered the soft tissue exposures to stresses and strain energy densities by 78% and 92%, respectively. While the surgical context is clear and there is a solid, relevant need for biomechanical information regarding prophylaxis for the prone positions, the projected consequences of the coronavirus pandemic make the present work more relevant than ever before.

Preventing iatrogenic facial pressure ulcers during spinal surgery: Prospective trial using a novel method and review of literature

To assess the outcome of a novel method of preventing facial pressure ulcers in spinal surgery and a review of literature. A prospective trial using a novel method of facial protection using paraffin tulle gras dressing to cover bony prominences during spinal surgical procedures was performed. Patients were reviewed at 24 hours and 6 weeks. A telephone survey was also conducted post discharge. Over an 8-month period, 12 patients (7F:5M, age 9-72 years) underwent spine surgery for tumour stabilisation (n = 7), deformity correction (n = 4), and degenerative presentation (n = 1) with mean operative time of 472 minutes (range 150-785 minutes) in prone position. All patients were managed by the same team using an agreed protocol. No pressure ulcers were noted in our study. One patient sustained minimal erythema, which resolved after 24 hours. All patients were satisfied with the care received. Facial pressure ulcers though much reduced are still common in spinal surgery. The common factors are the long duration of surgery, shear, friction, moisture, and intrinsic factors. Our strategy of an appropriate facial support and constant vigilance helped eliminate the incidence of iatrogenic facial ulcers in spinal surgery.

Alternating Pressure Overlay for Prevention of Intraoperative Pressure Injury

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a low-profile alternating pressure (AP) overlay system on hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs).

DESIGN

Prospective case series with historical controls.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

The study setting was the operating room and critical care unit of an urban quaternary care hospital in the Midwestern United States. One hundred neurosurgery patients undergoing surgery for 2 hours or longer in supine position were included in the study (AP group). The outcomes for the AP group were compared to a historical control group of 292 patients.

METHODS

A group of 100 patients were prospectively placed on the AP overlay during surgery. Participants were enrolled preoperatively and tracked by the research team during their hospital stay. Demographic data, details of the operation, and pressure injury risk factors were recorded. Following surgery, AP group patients were evaluated daily and continued on standard protocol for pressure injury prevention. The primary study outcome was HAPI rate during the perioperative period (up to 5 days postsurgery) for the AP group (plus standard of care) compared to the standard of care alone (historical control). Control group data were extracted from electronic health records for the prior 2 years. A written questionnaire was given to the care team that used the AP technology; items queried the degree of acceptance of the overlay by surgeons and the operating room and intensive care unit (ICU) staff.

RESULTS

None of the patients in the AP group developed perioperative pressure injuries. Review of historical control group revealed a 6% perioperative pressure injury incidence (18 pressure injuries in a group of 292 patients). Responses on the written questionnaire indicated that the AP technology was well accepted by surgeons and the operating room and ICU staff. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings suggest that AP overlay system can safely and reliably be used during neurological surgeries. Findings further suggest that using the AP product may improve outcomes with respect to perioperative HAPIs, including patients deemed at high risk for pressure injury development. Further studies are underway to evaluate the use of this AP overlay system beyond the operating room for more comprehensive care.

The use of a logistic regression model to develop a risk assessment of intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcer

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To screen the factors of intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcer and establish a new risk assessment model of intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcer.

DESIGN

This is a prospective study.

METHODS

A total of 1,963 patients who received neurosurgery, orthopaedics, paediatric surgery and cardiac surgery therapy in Sichuan Academy of Medical Science and Provincial People's Hospital in China from October 2015-October 2016 were enrolled in the study, and their clinical parameters were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and decision tree analysis were used to analyse and screen the factors of intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcer and establish the risk assessment model of intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcer.

RESULTS

The risk factors for intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcer included the application of external force during operation (β = 1.10, OR = 3.20), lean body mass (β = 1.08, OR = 2.95), time of operation ≥6 hr (β = 2.66, OR = 14.30), prone position operation (β = 1.13, OR = 3.10), cardiopulmonary bypass during operation (β = 1.72, OR = 5.59) and intraoperative blood loss (β = 0.67, OR = 1.95). The new risk assessment model showed that the AUC of ROC curve was 0.897 (p < .001). According to the maximum principle of Youden's index, the sensitivity, specificity and Youden's index J of the model were 0.81, 0.88 and 0.69, respectively, when the cut-off point was set at π = 0.025.

CONCLUSIONS

A new and relatively reliable assessment model for intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcer is established.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Pressure ulcers remain a challenge in clinical nursing. A new risk assessment model of pressure ulcers that is applicable to surgical patients is highly recommended.

An ex vivo porcine skin model to evaluate pressure-reducing devices of different mechanical properties used for pressure ulcer prevention

Pressure ulcers are complex wounds caused by pressure- and shear-induced trauma to skin and underlying tissues. Pressure-reducing devices, such as dressings, have been shown to successfully reduce pressure ulcer incidence, when used in adjunct to pressure ulcer preventative care. While pressure-reducing devices are available in a range of materials, with differing mechanical properties, understanding of how a material's mechanical properties will influence clinical efficacy remains limited. The aim of this study was to establish a standardized ex vivo model to allow comparison of the cell protection potential of two gel-like pressure-reducing devices with differing mechanical properties (elastic moduli of 77 vs. 35 kPa). The devices also displayed differing energy dissipation under compressive loading, and resisted strain differently under constant load in compressive creep tests. To evaluate biological efficacy we employed a new ex vivo porcine skin model, with a confirmed elastic moduli closely matching that of human skin (113 vs. 119 kPa, respectively). Static loads up to 20 kPa were applied to porcine skin ex vivo with subsequent evaluation of pressure-induced cell death and cytokine release. Pressure application alone increased the percentage of epidermal apoptotic cells from less than 2% to over 40%, and increased cellular secretion of the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF-alpha. Co-application of a pressure-reducing device significantly reduced both cellular apoptosis and cytokine production, protecting against cellular damage. These data reveal new insight into the relationship between mechanical properties of pressure-reducing devices and their biological effects. After appropriate validation of these results in clinical pressure ulcer prevention with all tissue layers present between the bony prominence and external surface, this ex vivo porcine skin model could be widely employed to optimize design and evaluation of devices aimed at reducing pressure-induced skin damage.

Saudi Arabian adult intensive care unit pressure ulcer incidence and risk factors: a prospective cohort study

The purpose of this study was to identify pressure ulcer (PU) incidence and risk factors that are associated with PU development in patients in two adult intensive care units (ICU) in Saudi Arabia. A prospective cohort study design was used. A total of 84 participants were screened second daily basis until discharge or death, over a consecutive 30-day period, out of which 33 participants with new PUs were identified giving a cumulative hospital-acquired PU incidence of 39·3% (33/84 participants). The incidence of medical devices-related PUs was 8·3% (7/84). Age, length of stay in the ICU, history of cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, infrequent repositioning, time of operation, emergency admission, mechanical ventilation and lower Braden Scale scores independently predicted the development of a PU. According to binary logistic regression analyses, age, longer stay in ICU and infrequent repositioning were significant predictors of all stages of PUs, while the length of stay in the ICU and infrequent repositioning were associated with the development of stages II-IV PUs. In conclusion, PU incidence rate was higher than that reported in other international studies. This indicates that urgent attention is required for PU prevention strategies in this setting.

Risk factors associated with intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers in the park-bench position: a retrospective study

Patients undergoing surgery in the park-bench position are at high risk of developing intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers (IAPUs). The purpose was to examine retrospectively risk factors associated with IAPUs in the park-bench position. This study was conducted at a general hospital during the period of September 2010 to September 2012. Twenty-one potential risk factors were evaluated using data obtained from the hospital database. IAPUs developed in 30 of 277 patients (11%). Perspiration was statistically found to be independently associated with IAPUs [OR 3·09, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 1.07-8·58, P = 0·037]. A length of surgery of more than 6 hours was identified to be likely associated with IAPUs (OR 2·64, 95% Cl 0·84-9·08, P = 0·095) compared with less than 6 hours. Furthermore, there was an interaction between the length of surgery and the core temperature; that is, when the length of surgery was more than 6 hours, a core temperature of more than 38·1°C at the end of surgery had a higher odds ratio (8·45, 95% Cl 3·04-27·46, P < 0·001) than that at a lower core temperature (3·20, 95% Cl 1·23-8·78, P = 0·017). These results suggest that perspiration and core temperature are preventable causative factors of pressure ulcers, even under conditions of prolonged surgery in the park-bench position.

Adverse outcomes after major surgery in patients with pressure ulcer: a nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study

Background

Postoperative adverse outcomes in patients with pressure ulcer are not completely understood. This study evaluated the association between preoperative pressure ulcer and adverse events after major surgeries.

Methods

Using reimbursement claims from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database, we conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study of 17391 patients with preoperative pressure ulcer receiving major surgery in 2008-2010. With a propensity score matching procedure, 17391 surgical patients without pressure ulcer were selected for comparison. Eight major surgical postoperative complications and 30-day postoperative mortality were evaluated among patients with pressure ulcer of varying severity.

Results

Patients with preoperative pressure ulcer had significantly higher risk than controls for postoperative adverse outcomes, including septicemia, pneumonia, stroke, urinary tract infection, and acute renal failure. Surgical patients with pressure ulcer had approximately 1.83-fold risk (95% confidence interval 1.54-2.18) of 30-day postoperative mortality compared with control group. The most significant postoperative mortality was found in those with serious pressure ulcer, such as pressure ulcer with local infection, cellulitis, wound or treatment by change dressing, hospitalized care, debridement or antibiotics. Prolonged hospital or intensive care unit stay and increased medical expenditures were also associated with preoperative pressure ulcer.

Conclusion

This nationwide propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study showed increased postoperative complications and mortality in patients with preoperative pressure ulcer. Our findings suggest the urgency of preventing and managing preoperative pressure ulcer by a multidisciplinary medical team for this specific population.

Retrospective review of predisposing factors for intraoperative pressure ulcer development

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comorbidities and surgical factors involved in the genesis of intraoperative pressure ulcers.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Anesthesiology department of a university medical center.

MEASUREMENTS

The charts of 222 patients with varying illness, who underwent an operation of at least two hours' duration, were analyzed retrospectively. Data on surgery type, case length, comorbidities, intraoperative surgical position, and area of ulceration were recorded.

MAIN RESULTS

Risk factors for intraoperative pressure ulcer development include surgical times of 4 hours or longer; comorbidities affecting tissue perfusion (namely, diabetes, hypertension, and nonspecific cardiac issues); supine placement during surgery; and abdominal, noncardiac thoracic, and orthopedic operations. Regions of the body most at risk for ulceration include the coccygeal/sacral region, the buttocks, genitalia, and heels.

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure ulcers are a costly, debilitating, and avoidable complication of surgery.

Pressure ulcer prevalence and risk factors during prolonged surgical procedures

Pressure ulcer formation related to positioning while in the OR increases the length of hospital stay and hospital costs, but there is little evidence documenting how positioning devices used in the OR influence pressure ulcer development when examined with traditional risk factors. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to identify the prevalence of and risk factors associated with pressure ulcer development among patients undergoing surgical procedures lasting longer than three hours. Participants included all adult same-day admission patients scheduled for a three-hour surgical procedure during an eight-month period (N = 258). Data were gathered preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively on pressure ulcer risk factors. Bivariate analyses indicated that the type of positioning (ie, heels elevated) (χ(2) = 7.897, P = .048), OR bed surface (ie, foam table pad) (χ(2) = 15.848, P = .000), skin assessment in the postanesthesia care unit (χ(2) = 41.652, P = .000), and male gender (χ(2) = 6.984, P = .030) were associated with pressure ulcer development. Logistic regression analyses indicated that the use of a foam pad (β = 2.691, P = .024) and a lower day-one Braden score (β = .244, P = .003) were predictive of pressure ulcers.

Patient-specific and surgical characteristics in the development of pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Implementation of the ruling on the Inpatient Prospective Payment System by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid has challenged nurses to focus on the prevention of pressure ulcers. Despite years of research, pressure ulcers are still one of the most common complications experienced by patients in health care facilities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between patients' characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, history of diabetes, and Braden Scale score at admission) and care characteristics (total operating room time, multiple surgeries, and vasopressor use) and the development of pressure ulcers.

METHODS

In a cohort study, data from the electronic medical records of 3225 surgical patients admitted to a Midwest hospital, from November 2008 to August 2009 were analyzed statistically to determine predictors of pressure ulcers.

RESULTS

A total of 12% of patients (n = 383) had at least 1 pressure ulcer develop during their hospitalization. According to logistic regression analysis, scores on the Braden Scale at admission (P < .001), low body mass index (P < .001), number of vasopressors (P = .03), multiple surgeries during the admission (P < .001), total surgery time (P < .001), and risk for mortality (P < .001) were significant predictors of pressure ulcers.

CONCLUSION

Scores on the Braden Scale at admission can be used to identify patients at increased risk for pressure ulcers. For other high-risk factors, such as low body mass index and long operative procedures, appropriate clinical interventions to manage these conditions can help prevent pressure ulcers.

Frequent manual repositioning and incidence of pressure ulcers among bed-bound elderly hip fracture patients

Frequent manual repositioning is an established part of pressure ulcer prevention, but there is little evidence for its effectiveness. This study examined the association between repositioning and pressure ulcer incidence among bed-bound elderly hip fracture patients, using data from a 2004-2007 cohort study in nine Maryland and Pennsylvania hospitals. Eligible patients (n=269) were age ≥ 65 years, underwent hip fracture surgery, and were bed-bound at index study visits (during the first 5 days of hospitalization). Information about repositioning on the days of index visits was collected from patient charts; study nurses assessed presence of stage 2+ pressure ulcers 2 days later. The association between frequent manual repositioning and pressure ulcer incidence was estimated, adjusting for pressure ulcer risk factors using generalized estimating equations and weighted estimating equations. Patients were frequently repositioned (at least every 2 hours) on only 53% (187/354) of index visit days. New pressure ulcers developed at 12% of visits following frequent repositioning vs. 10% following less frequent repositioning; the incidence rate of pressure ulcers per person-day did not differ between the two groups (incidence rate ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.5-2.4). No association was found between frequent repositioning of bed-bound patients and lower pressure ulcer incidence, calling into question the allocation of resources for repositioning.

Review of successful litigation against english health trusts in the treatment of adults with orthopaedic pathology: clinical governance lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Reviewing litigation brought against health institutions is a clinical governance issue and can help to prevent further cases. While large-scale databases are rare, the British National Health Service Litigation Authority deals with claims brought against all public health trusts in England.

METHODS

We reviewed all 2312 successful cases pertaining to adult orthopaedic claims between 2000 and 2006 in an effort to establish trends of litigation and highlight specific areas of concern such that orthopaedic health care could be potentially improved. A total of 1473 entries had sufficient detail to be considered in our study.

RESULTS

There were 4,847,841 elective and trauma-related orthopaedic procedures performed between 2000 and 2006 in the United Kingdom. Compared with the number of cases performed, the frequency of successful litigation is relatively low but financially costly to the National Health Service. From 2000 to 2006, a total of more than US$321,695,072 was paid in adult orthopaedic surgery-related settlements. The most common reason for successful litigation was due to the presence and sequelae of infection (123 cases). In the remaining cases, successful litigation appeared to be related to two common themes: the consent process and the mismanagement of orthopaedic conditions, particularly fractures, cauda equina syndrome, and compartment syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the fact that education and vigilance remain important components of orthopaedic training as many of the cases of successful litigation had a preventable cause.

Face tissue pressure in prone positioning: a comparison of three face pillows while in the prone position for spinal surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective, randomized study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose was to compare the tissue-pillow interface pressures at the forehead and chin in patients positioned in the prone fashion for spinal surgery on each of 3 facial positioners.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Facial pressure ulcers have been infrequently observed after spinal surgery requiring prone positioning. This requires the use of a specially designed head positioner to maintain spinal alignment and to allow space for the endotracheal tube.

METHODS

We enrolled 66 consecutive elective thoracic and/or lumbar surgery patients from 18 to 65 years of age. Patients were randomized on entry into the study to 1 of 3 positioners. Facial tissue pressures were measured at the patient's forehead and chin at times 0, 5, 15, and 60 minutes of positioning. The integrity of the patient's skin was recorded and classified at the end of surgery.

RESULTS

The pressures measured for the Dupaco positioner were lower at all time points at both the forehead and the chin in comparison with the other 2 positioners (P < 0.05). The ROHO and the OSI positioners created similar chin pressures at all time points (P > 0.05). The pressures at the forehead for the ROHO positioner were significantly less than those for the OSI positioner at all time points (P < 0.05). Ten patients on the OSI positioner had pressure ulcers at the end of the procedure.

CONCLUSION

The Dupaco ProneView Protective Helmet System is superior to both the OSI and the ROHO positioners in decreasing forehead and chin tissue interface pressures during prone position surgery.

Incidence of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients at risk according to the Waterlow scale and factors influencing the development of pressure ulcers

AIMS

To determine incidence of pressure ulcers in patients at risk according to the Waterlow scale in intensive care units and to evaluate the effects of risk factors in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers continue to be an important health problem that increases the risk of illness and death, extends patients' length of hospital stay and increases healthcare expenses.

DESIGN

The study was conducted as a descriptive and prospective study.

METHOD

The sample consisted of 140 patients. Data were collected using a data collection form, the skin assessment instrument and the Waterlow scale.

RESULTS

The incidence of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients was found to be 14.3%. The majority of pressure ulcers (74%) were grade I. The mean length of time for pressure ulcer development was found to be 10.4 (SD 1.85) days. A statistically significant difference was found in the patients for pressure ulcer development according to their level of consciousness, activity, cooperation, length of stay, Waterlow scale score and C-reactive protein level. In the multiple stepwise logistic regression analysis, the most influential factors for pressure ulcer development were determined to be length of stay and activity level.

CONCLUSIONS

Extra care needs to be taken to prevent pressure ulcer development in intensive care unit patients who have an extended length of stay, are dependent for activities, have high Waterlow scores, are unconscious and are not cooperative.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study determined the incidence of and factors that can affect the development of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients who are in a high risk group for the development of pressure ulcers and presented the importance of having Turkish nurses implement interventions directed at these factors.

Hip fracture and pressure ulcers - the Pan-European Pressure Ulcer Study - intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors

Pressure ulcers (PU) in patients with hip fracture remain a problem. Incidence of between 8.8% and 55% have been reported. There are few studies focusing on the specific patient-, surgery- and care-related risk indicators in this group. The aims of the study were: - to investigate prevalence and incidence of PU upon arrival and at discharge from hospital and to identify potential intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for development of PU in patients admitted for hip fracture surgery, - to illuminate potential differences in patient logistics, surgery, PU prevalence and incidence and care between Northern and Southern Europe. Consecutive patients with hip fracture in six countries, Sweden, Finland, UK (North) and Spain, Italy and Portugal (South), were included. The patients were followed from Accident and Emergency Department and until discharge or 7 days. Prevalence, PU at discharge and incidence were investigated, and intrinsic and extrinsic risk indicators, including waiting time for surgery and duration of surgery were recorded. Of the 635 patients, 10% had PU upon arrival and 22% at discharge (26% North and 16% South). The majority of ulcers were grade 1 and none was grade 4. Cervical fractures were more common in the North and trochanteric in the South. Waiting time for surgery and duration of surgery were significantly longer in the South. Traction was more common in the South and perioperative warming in the North. Risk factors of statistical significance correlated to PU at discharge were age >or=71 (P = 0.020), dehydration (P = 0.005), moist skin (P = 0.004) and total Braden score (P = 0.050) as well as subscores for friction (P = 0.020), nutrition (P = 0.020) and sensory perception (P = 0.040). Comorbid conditions of statistical significance for development of PU were diabetes (P = 0.005) and pulmonary disease (P = 0.006). Waiting time for surgery, duration of surgery, warming or non warming perioperatively, type of anaesthesia, traction and type of fracture were not significantly correlated with development of PU.

Pressure ulcers of the thorax after shoulder surgery

Of 896 patients having arthroscopic or combined arthroscopic and open shoulder procedures at our institution during a 10 year period, three sustained severe pressure ulcerations to the dependent, opposite thorax (one after an arthroscopic procedure, two after combined procedures). These three patients had an average age of 35 years (range 18-50 years) and an average operative time of 107 min (range 82-121 min). During surgery, each patient had an axillary roll (a bag of intravenous fluids) between the dependent thorax and the operative table. Immediate postoperative signs and symptoms included severe pain in the thorax of the nonoperative side and areas of full-thickness skin loss, and blistering. Biopsy of the lesion in one patient was consistent with skin pressure ulceration. At a minimum of 10 months of follow up, all three patients had recovered full range of motion and strength without skin grafting or additional surgery. The exact cause of these lesions is unknown, but we speculate that they resulted from a combination of the use of an intravenous fluid bag as an axillary roll, fluid between the skin and the roll, and friction from moving the patient.

Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers: A methodological review

Much is written about risk-assessment scales (RASs) for pressure ulcers (PU) and their properties demonstrating that they are of limited value. Less is known about the reasons for these limitations and the scope for improvement. This review examines issues such as structure and scoring for the Norton, Waterlow and Braden scales, showing that the equal-weighting technique behind the current RASs is too simplistic and leads to limitations. It concludes that properly trained, experienced nurses should conduct PU risk assessments, whilst more robust data-driven RASs should be developed using the differential weighting scoring method together with advanced statistical techniques.

Altered skin blood perfusion in areas with non blanchable erythema: an explorative study

Non blanchable erythema, i.e. stage I pressure ulcer, is common in patients in acute and geriatric care and in nursing homes. Research has shown that this type of lesions is prone to develop into more severe pressure ulcers. The peripheral skin blood perfusion is of major importance for the development of pressure ulcers. The aim of this study was to explore the peripheral skin blood perfusion over time, in areas with non blanchable erythema and in corresponding undamaged areas on the opposite side of the body. A total of 19 measurements were performed, over time, using a laser Doppler perfusion imager. The blood flow distribution profiles over areas with non blanchable erythema and undamaged skin were found to be different. As the area of the non blanchable erythema decreased, the blood perfusion distribution profiles gradually became more heterogeneous; an area of high blood perfusion in the centre of the lesions was seen and the perfusion successively decreased closer to the edge. These results indicate that there are differences in blood perfusion between skin areas of non blanchable erythema and undamaged skin. The results also indicate that the visible redness in areas with non blanchable erythema is related to altered blood perfusion. The skin blood perfusion also seems to increase in relation to the size of the non blanchable erythema.

Assessment and management of chronic pressure ulcers in the elderly

Pressure ulcers remain a complex and costly problem to the health care system. As the population ages, a greater number of individuals will be at high risk for developing pressure ulcers. An understanding of the physiologic changes that occur with aging skin is important in preventing and treating chronic wounds. Risk factor assessment and modification, when possible, can help to reduce the development of pressure ulcerations. Although the goal continues to be prevention, once a pressure ulcer does occur, a systematic and comprehensive approach to assessment and treatment is necessary to reduce healing times.

Prevention and Early Detection of Pressure Ulcers in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Absence of pressure ulcers is increasingly being used as an indicator of quality nursing care, based on the premise that pressure ulcers are preventable. This retrospective study examined the occurrence, presentation, and timing of pressure ulcer development in 150 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Pressure ulcer incidents were recorded in groups of patients who underwent surgery with use of a standard foam OR bed mattress; use of a fluid, pressure-reducing OR bed mattress; or use of a fluid, pressuring-reducing mattress after a comprehensive educational program on pressure ulcer prevention was presented to RNs. Tcers decreased when the fluid, pressure-reducing OR bed mattresses were used in conjunction with the comprehensive RN education program.

Pressure Ulcers Among Elderly Patients Early in the Hospital Stay

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers among elderly hospital patients diminish quality of life and increase the cost of hospital care. Evidence suggests that pressure ulcers can arise after only a few hours of immobility. The goals of this study were to estimate the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in the first 2 days of the hospital stay and to identify patient characteristics associated with higher incidence.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed between 1998 and 2001. A total of 3233 patients 65 years old or older admitted through the Emergency Department to the inpatient Medical Service at two study hospitals were examined by a research nurse on the third day of hospitalization. Pressure ulcers were ascertained using standard criteria and were classified as either preexisting, possibly hospital-acquired, or definitely hospital-acquired.

RESULTS

There were 201 patients with one or more possibly or definitely hospital-acquired pressure ulcers for a cumulative incidence of 6.2% (95% confidence interval, 5.4%-7.1%). Most of the pressure ulcers were stage 2, and the majority were in the sacral area or on the heels. In multivariable analysis, pressure ulcer incidence was significantly associated with increasing age, male gender, dry skin, urinary and fecal incontinence, difficulty turning in bed, nursing home residence prior to admission, recent hospitalization, and poor nutritional status.

CONCLUSIONS

A small but significant proportion of elderly emergently admitted hospital patients acquire pressure ulcers soon after their admission. New models of care may be required to ensure that preventive interventions are provided very early in the elderly person's hospital stay.

A 4-cm thermoactive viscoelastic foam pad on the operating room table to prevent pressure ulcer during cardiac surgery

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In this experimental study, a 4-cm thermoactive viscoelastic foam overlay and a heating source on the operating room table was compared with the standard operating room table with a heating source for the effect on the postoperative pressure ulcer incidence in cardiac surgery patients.

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcer incidence in the cardiac surgery population is reported to be up to 29.5%. The prolonged compressive forces from lying on the operating room table are one source of pressure ulcer development in this population. Pressure-reducing devices on the operating room (OR)-table should reduce the patients' interface pressure and thus the hazard of skin breakdown.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was performed to test the effect of a 4-cm thermoactive viscoelastic foam overlay with a water-filled warming mattress on the OR-table (test OR-table) compared with the standard OR-table (a water-filled warming mattress, no pressure-reducing device) on the postoperative pressure ulcer incidence in cardiac surgery patients.

INSTRUMENTS

The pressure ulcer classification system of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP) was used for pressure ulcer grading.

RESULTS

The results show that patients lying on the 4-cm thermoactive viscoelastic foam overlay suffer slightly more pressure ulcer (17.6%) than patients on the standard OR-table without the foam overlay (11.1%). Because of the clinical relevance of the results, the randomized controlled trial was terminated after 175 patients at the interim analysis although the power calculation stated 350 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of a 4-cm viscoelastic foam overlay and a warming source cannot be recommended for pressure ulcer prevention on the operating room table.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Foam overlays are used to prevent pressure ulcers in patients. It is necessary to use such devices according to patient safety and use of resources.

Prevenção de lesões de pele no perioperatório: revisão integrativa da literatura

A tomada de decisão do enfermeiro na sua prática diária necessita ser fundamentada em conhecimento científico. A prática baseada em evidências é uma abordagem que preconiza a utilização de resultados de pesquisas na prática clínica, sendo a revisão integrativa um de seus recursos. A presente investigação é uma revisão integrativa que teve como objetivo avaliar as evidências disponíveis sobre as intervenções eficazes de enfermagem para a prevenção de lesões de pele no paciente cirúrgico, no período transoperatório, ou em decorrência desse. Para a seleção dos artigos utilizou-se duas bases de dados, Cinalh e Medline, e a amostra desta revisão constituiu-se de 14 artigos. Após análise dos artigos incluídos na revisão os resultados dos estudos apontaram que os dispositivos considerados mais eficazes na prevenção de lesões de pele foram em ordem descrecente o colchão de ar micropulsante, cobertura de colchão de polímero de visco elástico seco e almofadas de gel, sucessivamente.

Interface pressure measurement during surgery: a comparison of four operating table surfaces

OBJECTIVE

To compare the pressure-reducing and pressure-redistributing characteristics of four operating room (OR) table mattresses using interface pressure measurements, in two positions adopted for surgical procedures.

METHOD

Support surfaces were randomly assigned to 80 patients. These were: an overlay pad filled with fibres (the standard OR mattress), a custom-made viscoelastic polyurethane foam mattress, an inflatable mattress with air-filled cells and a fluid mattress. An XSENSOR full-body pressure-mapping pad was used to record interface pressures of 40 patients in the supine position and 40 patients in the lithotomy position. Measurements were analysed for peak pressure, peak pressure index, total contact surface area and the occurrence of a significant increase in interface pressure during the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

The highest interface pressures were measured on the standard mattress, in both the supine and lithotomy position. Overall, the fluid mattress showed the best pressure-reducing and pressure-redistributing capacities.

CONCLUSION

As long as no reference values are available for interface pressures under which no pressure-related damage will occur, clinical testing of OR table surfaces is still necessary.

Pressure ulcer risk factors in patients undergoing surgery

AIM

This paper reports a study to identify risk factors associated with pressure ulcer development among a mixed group of adult patients undergoing surgery.

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been carried out with patients undergoing surgery to assess the risk of pressure ulcer development, and so there is a little knowledge of the risk factors for this group. However, studies among non-surgical patients have shown that nutritional predictors such as low serum albumin level and low body mass index (BMI) are of great importance. An additional predictive factor may be low blood pressure. It is important to study these predictors further among patients undergoing surgery, using techniques such as multiple regression techniques, designed to identify the most important predictors for pressure ulcer development.

METHODS

A prospective comparative study was carried out in 1996-1998 with 286 adult patients undergoing surgical treatment. The data were collected from patient records by Registered Nurses preoperatively, for seven days postoperatively and thereafter once a week for up to 12 weeks. Perioperative data were also collected. The Risk Assessment Pressure Sore Scale was used, and data were collected on general physical condition, activity, mobility, moisture, food intake, fluid intake, sensory perception, friction and shear, body temperature and serum albumin.

RESULTS

Forty-one (14.3%) patients developed pressure ulcers during the observation period. The most common type was non-blanchable erythema. Those who developed pressure ulcers were significantly older, weighed less, and had a lower BMI and serum albumin. More women than men developed pressure ulcers. Risk factors identified in multiple stepwise regression analyses were female gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) status or New York Heart Association (NYHA) status and food-intake.

CONCLUSION

Special attention, with regard to risk of pressure ulcer development, should be paid to patients undergoing surgery who have low ASA or NYHA scores, low food intake and/or are women.

Predicting and preventing pressure ulcers in surgical patients

Pressure ulcers, regardless of their origin, represent negative outcomes for patients, including pain, additional treatments and surgery longer hospital stays, disfigurement or scarring, increased morbidity, and increased costs. The or is a high-risk environment for the development of pressure ulcers. Preoperative identification of patients at risk for pressure ulcer development is imperative if cost-effective, evidence-based preventive measures are to be implemented. This article presents a review of the literature pertaining to pressure ulcer development in surgical patients. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are provided.

Predicting pressure ulcers: cases missed using a new clinical prediction rule

AIM

The aim of this paper is to report a study describing patients with pressure ulcers that were incorrectly classified as 'not at risk' by the prediction rule and comparing them with patients who were correctly classified as 'not at risk'.

BACKGROUND

Patients admitted to hospital are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Although the majority of pressure ulcers can be predicted using a recently developed prediction rule, up to 30% of patients with pressure ulcers may still be misclassified.

METHODS

Between January 1999 and June 2000 a prospective cohort study was conducted in two large hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients admitted to neurology, internal, surgical, and elder care wards for more than 5 days were included (n = 1229), and were examined weekly. Information on potential prognostic determinants for pressure ulcers mentioned in the literature was recorded. Outcome was defined as occurrence of a pressure ulcer grade 2 or worse during hospital admission.

RESULTS

Patients who developed pressure ulcers experienced more problems with 'friction and shear' and underwent surgery more often and longer. Also, they were more often admitted because of malignant conditions.

CONCLUSION

We found no specific characteristics that clearly distinguished patients with pressure ulcers that were incorrectly classified as 'not at risk' by the prediction rule from patients who were correctly classified as 'not at risk'. It appears difficult to improve further on the prediction of pressure ulcers using available clinical information.

Development of a Risk Assessment Tool for Intraoperative Pressure Ulcers

This article discusses the current literature related to intraoperative and preoperative risk factors for pressure ulcer development. Although surgical patients have a high risk of pressure ulcer development, the intraoperative period of patient care has often been missed as a time of increased risk. Pressure ulcers, which may originate in the operating room, may be incorrectly blamed on postoperative areas of care resulting from delay of pressure ulcer demarcation. In the literature review, current risk assessment tools do not adequately address intraoperative risk factors. A risk assessment tool that incorporates the specific variables relevant to the preoperative and intraoperative environment is proposed based on existing literature. A pilot study of the tool was done testing for intrarater reliability.

Incidence of pressure ulcers due to surgery

Patients undergoing surgery are prone to develop pressure ulcers during the surgical procedure. The aim of the study was to gain insight into the problem by describing the incidence, clinical features and progression of pressure ulcers and closed pressure ulcers in patients undergoing surgery lasting more than 4 hours. A prospective follow-up study was conducted in a university hospital in the Netherlands. Two-hundred and eight patients from nine surgical specialities were included in the study. The skin of patients was observed the evening before surgery and, if the patient's condition allowed it, directly postoperatively and subsequently daily for 14 days or until discharge, whichever occurred first. When patients developed a pressure ulcer they were observed daily until discharge or until the pressure ulcer had healed. The size and colour of the lesion, stage and skin condition were described every day. In addition, data were collected concerning the operation, postoperative period, and general characteristics. Forty-four patients (21.2%) developed 70 pressure ulcers in the first 2 days following surgery. Twenty-one pressure ulcers deteriorated in the days following surgery. More than half (52.9%) of the lesions developed on the heels, and 15.7% developed in the sacral area. Twenty-five patients (12%) were impaired by the lesions they developed. None of the patients in the study developed closed pressure ulcers. Pressure ulcer development during a surgical procedure is a serious problem. Therefore, preventive measures should be taken during surgery and the first few days afterwards, until the patient is able to mobilize independently.

Effects of warming therapy on pressure ulcers--a randomized trial

Postoperative pressure ulcers are a common and expensive problem. Intraoperative hypothermia also is a common problem and may have a connection with impaired tissue viability. Researchers in this study hypothesized that intraoperative control of hypothermia may reduce the incidence of postoperative pressure ulcers. A randomized clinical trial (n = 338) was used to test the effects of using forced air warming therapy versus standard care. Results indicated an absolute risk reduction in pressure ulcers of 4.8% (i.e., 10.4% to 5.6%) with a relative risk reduction of 46% in patients who received warming therapy. Although not reaching statistical significance, the clinical significance of almost halving the pressure ulcer rate is important. A correlation between body temperature and postoperative pressure ulcers was established.

Hospital-acquired heel ulcers: a common but neglected problem

The development of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers on the heel is a growing problem. The best way of preventing this is to ensure the heel is completely free from pressure.

An integrative review of pressure relief in surgical patients

Effective patient positioning has been an important issue throughout the history of the nursing profession. Pressure ulcers result from prolonged pressure, which causes skin, tissue, or muscle damage. Surgical patients present a unique challenge in preventing pressure ulcers because they are immobile and unable to perceive the discomfort of prolonged pressure. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine risk factors associated with pressure ulcer development in surgical patients and to examine pressure-relieving support surfaces to determine if they significantly reduce intraoperative tissue pressure and result in a lower incidence of postoperative pressure ulcers. Most of the research focuses on long-term care units, with little attention given to the acute care setting. Although the pathophysiology and etiology of pressure ulcers are well documented by years of research, the OR as an etiologic factor is largely undefined.

Preventing pressure ulcers: an evaluation of four operating-table mattresses

Pressure is a major factor in the development of pressure ulcers. This research focused on assessing the pressure-reducing effects of operating-table mattresses. Five mattresses were tested: a standard operating-table mattress, a foam mattress, a gel mattress, a visco-elastic polyether mattress, and a visco-elastic polyurethane mattress. Four intraoperative postures were evaluated: supine, lateral, fossa, and the Miles-Pauchet position. Interface pressure measurements were performed on 36 healthy volunteers. The foam mattress and the gel mattress seem to have little or no pressure-reducing effect; the polyurethane mattress and the polyether mattress reduce interface pressure significantly better (p < .001); but none of the mattresses reduce pressure sufficiently to prevent the occurrence of pressure ulcers.

Prognostic factors associated with pressure sore development in the immediate post-operative period

The purpose of this study was to identify variables associated with post-operative pressure sore incidence. The data were derived from a sequential, double triangular, randomised, blinded, controlled trial of the intra-operative use of a visco-elastic polymer pad conducted at two centres. Of 446 surgical patients recruited the main endpoint was assessed for 416 patients of whom 65 (15.6%) had a post-operative pressure sore. Analysis determined that the probability of a patient developing a pressure sore was associated with increased number of hypotensive episodes and mean core temperature during surgery, and reduced mobility Day 1 post-operatively. The development of a probability equation illustrates the future potential of prognostic factor research in the development of risk assessment tools and their application within clinical settings.