1
|
Xiao Y, Liu T, Meng C, Jiao ZA, Meng F, Guo S. [Modeling and comfort analysis of arrayed air cushion mattress for pressure ulcer prevention and assisted repositioning]. SHENG WU YI XUE GONG CHENG XUE ZA ZHI = JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING = SHENGWU YIXUE GONGCHENGXUE ZAZHI 2024; 41:160-167. [PMID: 38403617 PMCID: PMC10894743 DOI: 10.7507/1001-5515.202305016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/27/2024]
Abstract
Assisting immobile individuals with regular repositioning to adjust pressure distribution on key prominences such as the back and buttocks is the most effective measure for preventing pressure ulcers. However, compared to active self-repositioning, passive assisted repositioning results in distinct variations in force distribution on different body parts. This incongruity can affect the comfort of repositioning and potentially lead to a risk of secondary injury, for certain trauma or critically ill patients. Therefore, it is of considerable practical importance to study the passive turning comfort and the optimal turning strategy. Initially, in this study, the load-bearing characteristics of various joints during passive repositioning were examined, and a wedge-shaped airbag configuration was proposed. The airbags coupled layout on the mattress was equivalently represented as a spring-damping system, with essential model parameters determined using experimental techniques. Subsequently, different assisted repositioning strategies were devised by adjusting force application positions and sequences. A human-mattress force-coupled simulation model was developed based on rigid human body structure and equivalent flexible springs. This model provided the force distribution across the primary pressure points on the human body. Finally, assisted repositioning experiments were conducted with 15 participants. The passive repositioning effectiveness and pressure redistribution was validated based on the simulation results, experimental data, and questionnaire responses. Furthermore, the mechanical factors influencing comfort during passive assisted repositioning were elucidated, providing a theoretical foundation for subsequent mattress design and optimization of repositioning strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yunxuan Xiao
- Engineering Research Centre of the Ministry of Education for Intelligent Rehabilitation Devices and Testing Technology, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- State Key Lab of Reliability and Intelligence of Electrical Equipment, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- School of Mechanical Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
| | - Teng Liu
- Engineering Research Centre of the Ministry of Education for Intelligent Rehabilitation Devices and Testing Technology, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- State Key Lab of Reliability and Intelligence of Electrical Equipment, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- School of Mechanical Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
| | - Chuizhou Meng
- Engineering Research Centre of the Ministry of Education for Intelligent Rehabilitation Devices and Testing Technology, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- State Key Lab of Reliability and Intelligence of Electrical Equipment, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- School of Mechanical Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
| | - Zi' Ang Jiao
- School of Electrical Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300130, P. R. China
| | - Fanchao Meng
- Engineering Research Centre of the Ministry of Education for Intelligent Rehabilitation Devices and Testing Technology, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- State Key Lab of Reliability and Intelligence of Electrical Equipment, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- School of Mechanical Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
| | - Shijie Guo
- Engineering Research Centre of the Ministry of Education for Intelligent Rehabilitation Devices and Testing Technology, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- State Key Lab of Reliability and Intelligence of Electrical Equipment, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
- School of Mechanical Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P. R. China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bao Z, Hu C, Zhu L, Wang W. Study on the effectiveness of modified colonoscopy nursing pads in colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2022; 22:531. [PMID: 36539692 PMCID: PMC9768946 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02493-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2022] [Accepted: 08/31/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of modified colonoscopy nursing pads in colonoscopy. METHODS A total of 262 subjects who underwent colonoscopy at our endoscopy center between September 1, 2021 and February 28, 2022 were selected and randomly divided into a control group and an experimental group, with 131 cases in each group. The control group used conventional nursing pads, while the experimental group used modified nursing pads. The success rate of the first correct position, the time spent by the nurse to guide the correct position, the bed unit contamination rate, the contamination rate of the operator's protective equipment, the privacy protection of the examinees and the satisfaction degree after the examination were compared between the two groups. RESULTS The success rate of the first correct position of the examinees in the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the time spent by the nurses to guide the correct position in the experimental group was less than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The bed unit contamination rate and operator's protective equipment contamination rate of the experimental group were lower than those of the control group, and the satisfaction degree of the examinees was higher in the experimental group than in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION The modified colonoscopy nursing pad can save the time of correct colonoscopy positioning of examinees, improve the efficiency of colonoscopy, reduce the workload of nursing staff, effectively protect the privacy of patients, reduce the bed unit contamination and protective equipment contamination, and then improve the comfort and satisfaction of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhenfei Bao
- grid.416271.70000 0004 0639 0580Department of Endoscopy Center, Ningbo First Hospital, No.59 of Liuting Street, Haishu District, Zhejiang, 315010 China
| | - Chunyan Hu
- grid.416271.70000 0004 0639 0580Department of Endoscopy Center, Ningbo First Hospital, No.59 of Liuting Street, Haishu District, Zhejiang, 315010 China
| | - Lei Zhu
- grid.416271.70000 0004 0639 0580Department of Endoscopy Center, Ningbo First Hospital, No.59 of Liuting Street, Haishu District, Zhejiang, 315010 China
| | - Weihong Wang
- grid.416271.70000 0004 0639 0580Department of Endoscopy Center, Ningbo First Hospital, No.59 of Liuting Street, Haishu District, Zhejiang, 315010 China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, McInnes E, Goh EL, Norman G. Beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing and treating pressure ulcers: an overview of Cochrane Reviews and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 8:CD013761. [PMID: 34398473 PMCID: PMC8407250 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013761.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Jo C Dumville
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicky Cullum
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah Rhodes
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Elizabeth McInnes
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University , Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia
| | - En Lin Goh
- Oxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Oxford, UK
| | - Gill Norman
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, McInnes E. Alternative reactive support surfaces (non-foam and non-air-filled) for preventing pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 5:CD013623. [PMID: 34097764 PMCID: PMC8179967 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013623.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Jo C Dumville
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicky Cullum
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah Rhodes
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Elizabeth McInnes
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|