A sequential randomised controlled trial comparing a dry visco-elastic polymer pad and standard operating table mattress in the prevention of post-operative pressure sores

Patient Positioning in Spine Surgery: What Spine Surgeons Should Know?

Spine surgery has advanced tremendously over the last decade. The number of spine surgeries performed each year has also been increasing constantly. Unfortunately, the reporting of position-related complications in spine surgery has also been steadily increasing. These complications not only result in significant morbidity for the patient but also raises the risk of litigation for the surgical and anesthetic teams. Fortunately, most position-related complications are avoidable with basic positioning knowledge. Hence, it is critical to be cautious and take all necessary precautions to avoid position-related complications. We discuss the various position-related complications associated with the prone position, which is the most commonly used position in spine surgery, in this narrative review. We also discuss the various methods for avoiding complications. Furthermore, we briefly discuss less commonly used positions in spine surgery, like the lateral and sitting positions.

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.

Comparison of interface pressures on three operating table support surfaces during surgery

AIM OF THE STUDY

To investigate the effect of support surface usage and positions on interface pressure during surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized controlled experimental study was conducted between October 2018 and June 2019. The study included patients who had planned surgery in supine and prone positions. The sample size was 72 patients. Patients were assigned to three groups (gel support surface, viscoelastic support surface and standard operating table) according to the determined randomization table. During the surgery, the pressure in the patients' body was recorded. The statistics program IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 packaged software was used in the analyses of data.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the total body average interface pressure (mmHg) values between the supporting surfaces in the prone position. There was a statistically significant difference between the total body average interface pressure (mmHg) values between the support surfaces in the supine position, and the average interface pressure measured on the viscoelastic foam support surface was significantly lower than the gel support surface and the standard operating table.

CONCLUSION

In the study, the use of viscoelastic foam support surface was found to be more effective than the use of a standard operating table and gel support surface. Viscoelastic foam support surface is recommended for patients at risk for pressure injury in the operating room.

Estratégias de enfermagem para prevenção de lesão por pressão em pacientes cirúrgicos

Objetivo: Identificar na literatura as estratégias utilizadas pela equipe de enfermagem para prevenção de lesão por pressão em pacientes cirúrgicos. Métodos: Revisão integrativa, utilizando a estratégia PICo, tendo como questão norteadora: “quais as estratégias utilizadas pela equipe de enfermagem para prevenção de lesão por pressão em pacientes cirúrgicos?” As buscas foram realizadas nas bases de dados Web of Science, MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus e no índice bibliográfico LILACS via BVS, sendo analisados 12 estudos. Resultados: O Brasil se destacou com quatro publicações e os estudos de coorte, com nível de evidência IV, prevaleceram em seis artigos. As intervenções tecnológicas para prevenção de lesão por pressão no centro cirúrgico foram colchões para distribuição de pressão, dispositivo para redução de pressão no calcâneo, instrumentos validados específicos para a classificação do risco de lesão por pressão em pacientes cirúrgicos, além de superfícies de apoio contendo polímero viscoelástico e outros utensílios para alívio da pressão decorrente do peso e de dispositivos médicos. Com relação às intervenções educativas, destacaram-se os protocolos, os treinamentos e a simulação realística. Conclusão: Observou-se que essas estratégias reduziram a incidência de lesão por pressão, além de diminuírem os custos e garantirem a satisfação dos pacientes.

Nursing strategies for pressure injury prevention in surgical patients

Objective: To identify in the literature the strategies used by nursing teams to prevent pressure injury in surgical patients. Methods: Integrative review, using the PICo strategy, with the guiding question: “What are the strategies used by the nursing team to prevent pressure injury in surgical patients?” The searches were performed in the Web of Science, MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus and LILACS bibliographic index via VHL, from where 12 studies were analyzed. Results: Brazil stood out with four publications and cohort studies, with level of evidence IV, prevailed in six articles. Technological interventions for the prevention of Pressure Injury in the operating room were pressure distribution mattresses, a device to reduce pressure on the calcaneus, specific validated instruments for the classification of the risk of Pressure Injury in surgical patients, in addition to support surfaces containing polymer viscoelastic and other tools to relieve pressure from weight and medical devices. Regarding educational interventions, protocols, training and realistic simulation stood out. Conclusion: It was observed that these strategies reduced the incidence of pressure injury, in addition to reducing costs and ensuring patient satisfaction.

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.

Choosing an optimal headrest for preventing postoperative alopecia - A manikin study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative alopecia is a rare complication after surgery. The etiology is thought to be pressure-induced hair follicles ischemia caused by prolonged immobilized head. Headrest is always used as head positioner during operation. The contact pressure between the head and headrest is believed to be related to the development of postoperative alopecia. The aim of this study was to find a headrest with the minimum contact pressure.

METHODS

Five different materials headrests - folded sheet, foam donut, gel donut, natural latex, and memory foam were examined. The contact pressures between the manikin's head and tested headrests were continuously recorded for 4 h using CONFORMat System sensor. The average and peak pressures over the contact area were measured at 15 min, 30 min, 45 min, 1 h, 2 h, 3 h, and 4 h. A generalized estimating equations (GEEs) analysis and one way repeated measures ANOVA were used to assess the data.

RESULTS

The memory foam headrest showed the lowest average and peak contact pressures over the contact area (p < 0.05), and the natural latex headrest, gel donut headrest, foam donut headrest, and folded sheet headrest revealed increase of the contact pressures in order. The peak contact pressure of the gel donut headrest at 4 h was significantly higher than that of at 15 min (p = 0.032) and 30 min (p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Of the five headrests we examined, the memory foam headrest is suggested to be the best choice for surgical patients because of its lowest contact pressure.

Support surfaces in the prevention of pressure ulcers in surgical patients: An integrative review

AIM

To assess the scientific evidence about the types of support surfaces used in intraoperative surgical practice in the prevention of pressure ulcers due to surgical positioning.

METHOD

This is an integrative literature review. The electronic databases Cochrane, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs, and CINAHL were used. The descriptors surgical patients, support surfaces, perioperative care, patient positioning, and pressure ulcer were used in the search strategy. Articles that addressed the use of support surfaces intraoperatively, published between 1990 and 2016, were selected. The PRISMA guidelines were used to structure the review.

RESULTS

Of 18 evaluated studies, most were in English, followed by Portuguese and Spanish; most were performed by nurses. The most commonly cited support surfaces were viscoelastic polymer, micropulse mattresses, gel based mattresses, and foam devices.

CONCLUSION

There are gaps in knowledge regarding the most efficient support surfaces and the specifications of the products used to prevent pressure ulcers due to surgical positioning.

Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.A clear and current overview of all the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (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, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds.We judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole.It is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze.More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.

Evaluation of external pressure to the sacral region in the lithotomy position using the noninvasive pressure distribution measurement system

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (PUs) in the sacral region can be a complication of surgical procedures performed in the lithotomy position. Previous reports have noted a difference between men and women in PU development related to the supine position, and body weight and body mass index (BMI) have been also described as known risk factors in supine position-related PU development. The BIG-MAT^® system is a noninvasive pressure distribution measurement device used to measure external pressure (EP). We used this system to investigate the relationship between EP to the sacral region in the lithotomy position and selected physical characteristics.

METHODS

We recruited 21 young, healthy volunteers (11 men and 10 women, aged 21.4±0.5 years). Using the BIG-MAT system, we measured four types of EP to the sacral region: box pressure, peak box pressure, contact pressure, and peak contact pressure. We analyzed the relationships between these dynamic parameters and physical characteristics of the participants.

RESULTS

There were no differences between men and women in the four types of EP, and no significant differences related to the participants' height, weight, or BMI.

CONCLUSION

An individual's height, weight, and BMI may not contribute to the risk of inducing lithotomy position-related PUs in the sacral region. The noninvasive pressure distribution measurement system BIG-MAT for patients in the lithotomy position during surgery could become a significant device when estimating EP at the sacral region.

Exploring the role of pain as an early predictor of category 2 pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To explore pressure area related pain as a predictor of category ≥2 pressure ulcer (PU) development.

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective cohort study.

SETTING

UK hospital and community settings.

PARTICIPANTS INCLUSION

Consenting acutely ill patients aged ≥18 years, defined as high risk (Braden bedfast/chairfast AND completely immobile/very limited mobility; pressure area related pain or; category 1 PU).

EXCLUSION

Patients too unwell, unable to report pain, 2 or more category ≥2 PUs.

FOLLOW-UP

Twice weekly for 30 days.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Development and time to development of one or more category ≥2 PUs.

RESULTS

Of 3819 screened, 1266 were eligible, 634 patients were recruited, 32 lost to follow-up, providing a 602 analysis population. 152 (25.2%) developed one or more category ≥2 PUs. 464 (77.1%) patients reported pressure area related pain on a healthy, altered or category 1 skin site of whom 130 (28.0%) developed a category ≥2 PU compared with 22 (15.9%) of those without pain. Full stepwise variable selection was used throughout the analyses. (1) Multivariable logistic regression model to assess 9 a priori factors: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.25, 95% CI (2.17 to 4.86), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.98, 95% CI (1.30 to 3.00), p=0.0014), pressure area related pain (OR=1.56, 95% CI (0.93 to 2.63), p=0.0931). (2) Multivariable logistic regression model to account for overdispersion: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.20, 95% CI (2.11 to 4.85), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.90, 95% CI (1.24 to 2.91), p=0.0032), pressure area related pain (OR=1.85, 95% CI (1.07 to 3.20), p=0.0271), pre-existing category 2 PU (OR=2.09, 95% CI (1.35 to 3.23), p=0.0009), presence of chronic wound (OR=1.66, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.62), p=0.0277), Braden activity (p=0.0476). (3) Accelerated failure time model: presence of category 1 PU (AF=2.32, 95% CI (1.73 to 3.12), p<0.0001), pressure area related pain (AF=2.28, 95% CI (1.59 to 3.27), p<0.0001). (4) 2-level random-intercept logistic regression model: skin status which comprised 2 levels (versus healthy skin); alterations to intact skin (OR=4.65, 95% CI (3.01 to 7.18), p<0.0001), presence of category 1 PU (OR=17.30, 95% CI (11.09 to 27.00), p<0.0001) and pressure area related pain (OR=2.25, 95% CI (1.53 to 3.29), p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to assess pain as a predictor of category ≥2 PU development. In all 4 models, pain emerged as a risk factor associated with an increased probability of category ≥2 PU development.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual's functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers.

METHODS/DESIGN

PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 'high-risk' patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee.

DISCUSSION

The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013. Protocol version: 5.0, dated 25 September 2015 Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.

Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in the elderly and immobile, and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving support surfaces (i.e. beds, mattresses, seat cushions etc) are used to help prevent ulcer development.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review seeks to establish:(1) the extent to which pressure-relieving support surfaces reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces, and,(2) their comparative effectiveness in ulcer prevention.

SEARCH METHODS

In April 2015, for this fourth update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 April 2015) which includes the results of regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence. Trials reporting only proxy outcomes (e.g. interface pressure) were excluded. Two review authors independently selected trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one review author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

For this fourth update six new trials were included, bringing the total of included trials to 59.Foam alternatives to standard hospital foam mattresses reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk (RR 0.40 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74). The relative merits of alternating- and constant low-pressure devices are unclear. One high-quality trial suggested that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two trials indicated that foam overlays caused adverse skin changes. Meta-analysis of three trials suggest that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevent pressure ulcers (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97). 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People at high risk of developing pressure ulcers should use higher-specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers are unclear, but alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre.

Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE): using mixed methods (systematic reviews, prospective cohort, case study, consensus and psychometrics) to identify patient and organisational risk, develop a risk assessment tool and patient-reported outcome Quality of Life and Health Utility measures

Background

The Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE) consisted of two themes. Theme 1 focused on improving our understanding of individuals’ and organisational risk factors and on improving the quality of risk assessments (work packages 1–3) and theme 2 focused on developing patient-reported outcome measures (work packages 4 and 5).

Methods

The programme comprised 21 individual pieces of work. Pain: (1) multicentre pain prevalence study in acute hospitals, (2) multicentre pain prevalence study in community localities incorporating (3) a comparison of case-finding methods, and (4) multicentre, prospective cohort study. Severe pressure ulcers: (5) retrospective case study, (6) patient involvement workshop with the Pressure Ulcer Research Service User Network for the UK (PURSUN UK) and (7) development of root cause analysis methodology. Risk assessment: (8) systematic review, (9) consensus study, (10) conceptual framework development and theoretical causal pathway, (11) design and pretesting of draft Risk Assessment Framework and (12) field test to assess reliability, validity, data completeness and clinical usability. Quality of life: (13) conceptual framework development (systematic review, patient interviews), (14 and 15) provisional instrument development, with items generated from patient interviews [from (1) above] two systematic reviews and experts, (16) pretesting of the provisional Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument using mixed methods, (17) field test 1 including (18) optimal mode of administration substudy and item reduction with testing of scale formation, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity, and (19) field test 2 – final psychometric evaluation to test scale targeting, item response categories, item fit, response bias, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity. Cost–utility: (20) time trade-off task valuations of health states derived from selected PU-QOL items, and (21) validation of the items selected and psychometric properties of the new Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life Utility Index (PUQOL-UI).

Key findings

Pain: prevalence studies – hospital and community patients experience both pressure area-related and pressure ulcer pain; pain cohort study – indicates that pain is independently predictive of category 2 (and above) pressure ulcer development. Severe pressure ulcers: these were more likely to develop in contexts in which clinicians failed to listen to patients/carers or recognise/respond to high risk or the presence of an existing pressure ulcer and services were not effectively co-ordinated; service users found the interactive workshop format valuable; including novel components (interviews with patients and carers) in root cause analysis improves the quality of the insights captured. Risk assessment: we developed a Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Framework, the PURPOSE-T, incorporating the Minimum Data Set, a screening stage, a full assessment stage, use of colour to support decision-making, and decision pathways that make a clear distinction between patients with an existing pressure ulcer(s) (or scarring from previous ulcers) who require secondary prevention and treatment and those at risk who require primary prevention (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/accesspurposet). Quality of life: the final PU-QOL instrument consists of 10 scales to measure pain, exudate, odour, sleep, vitality, mobility/movement, daily activities, emotional well-being, self-consciousness and appearance, and participation (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ques). Cost–utility: seven items were selected from the PU-QOL instrument for inclusion in the PUQOL-UI (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ui); secondary study analysis indicated that item selection for the PUQOL-UI was appropriate and that the index was acceptable to patients and had adequate levels of validity.

Conclusions

The PURPOSE programme has provided important insights for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and involvement of service users in research and development, with implications for patient and public involvement, clinical practice, quality/safety/health service management and research including replication of the pain risk factor study, work exploring ‘best practice’ settings, the impact of including skin status as an indicator for escalation of preventative interventions, further psychometric evaluation of PU-QOL and PUQOL-UI the measurement of ‘disease attribution.’

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Proper Patient Positioning and Complication Prevention in Orthopaedic Surgery

➤ The consequences of improper intraoperative positioning can be profound: it not only may cause substantial morbidity but also may be a major area of litigation, particularly when peripheral nerve injury occurs.➤ The ulnar nerve is most likely to be injured secondary to improper positioning. The elbow should be flexed ≤90° and the forearm placed in a neutral or slightly supinated position intraoperatively to minimize pressure in the cubital tunnel.➤ Pressure-related complications, such as pressure ulcers and alopecia, are best avoided by the use of adequate padding. Cushions on the operating-room table and armrest should be emphasized under osseous prominences.➤ Positioning the head in a non-neutral alignment or arm abduction of ≥90° may result in injury to the brachial plexus.➤ The hemilithotomy position increases intracompartmental pressure in the leg on the uninjured side. The risk of well-leg compartment syndrome can be minimized by avoiding this position if possible.

Rhabdomyolysis after neurosurgery: a review and a framework for prevention

Rhabdomyolysis (RM) is a potentially fatal or disabling clinical syndrome resulting in muscle necrosis and leakage of muscle constituents into the blood. Lactic acidosis and more serious complications such as acute renal failure may occur in up to half of recognized cases, so accurate diagnosis is required. We present three cases in which RM occurred in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures performed in the lateral position. A review of the literature is provided together with a framework for the prevention of this surgical complication. Three patients underwent neurosurgical procedures in the lateral position for left facial/glossopharyngeal neuralgia, for jugular foramen tumor, and for a petroclival meningioma, respectively. All patients were obese and all three showed massive postoperative elevation in creatine kinase (CK) levels characteristic of RM. Myoglobinuria was identified in two patients and all three showed hyperintensity of the hip gird muscles in the short tau inversion recovery sequence magnetic resonance imaging. All recovered spontaneously and none went on to develop renal failure. A literature review showed that RM has been rarely reported after neurosurgery. However, the duration of procedures of the cases of reported RM indicates that the prevalence of the condition is likely highly under-recognized in neurosurgery. This is particularly important given the rising obesity rates seen in many countries. Obese patients undergoing long neurosurgical procedures, particularly in the lateral position, should be suspected of RM and should be closely monitored for CK levels, myoglobinuria, and acidosis. We outline a framework of strategies for the prevention of the condition.

A resource-efficient planning for pressure ulcer prevention

Pressure ulcer is a critical problem for bed-ridden and wheelchair-bound patients, diabetics, and the elderly. Patients need to be regularly repositioned to prevent excessive pressure on a single area of body, which can lead to ulcers. Pressure ulcers are extremely costly to treat and may lead to several other health problems, including death. The current standard for prevention is to reposition at-risk patients every two hours. Even if it is done properly, a fixed schedule is not sufficient to prevent all ulcers. Moreover, it may result in nurses being overworked by turning some patients too frequently. In this paper, we present an algorithm for finding a nurse-effort optimal repositioning schedule that prevents pressure ulcer formation for a finite planning horizon. Our proposed algorithm uses data from a commercial pressure mat assembled on the beds surface and provides a sequence of next positions and the time of repositioning for each patient.

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.

Use of an intervention bundle to eliminate pressure ulcers in critical care

Nursing staff chose to eliminate hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in their intensive care unit through implementation of an intervention bundle. A bundle of 7 interventions (pressure ulcer bundle, PUB) was developed through review of current evidence. After implementation, quarterly hospital-acquired pressure ulcer rates decreased and continued to remain below 1% throughout the year, and the goal of no pressure ulcers was met for 2 months. The PUB interventions have potential for use in a variety of settings where there are bed-bound patients.

Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in the elderly and immobile, and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving support surfaces (i.e. beds, mattresses, seat cushions etc) are used to help prevent ulcer development.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review seeks to establish: (1) the extent to which pressure-relieving support surfaces reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces, and, (2) their comparative effectiveness in ulcer prevention.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this third update we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 8 December 2010), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to November Week 3 2010); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 07, 2010); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 48); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 3 December 2010), and the reference sections of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised studies, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence.Studies reporting only proxy outcomes (e.g. interface pressure) were excluded. Two review authors independently selected studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar studies were pooled for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

One new trial was included, bringing the total of included studies to 53.Foam alternatives to standard hospital foam mattresses reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk (RR 0.40 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74). The relative merits of alternating- and constant low-pressure devices are unclear. One high-quality trial suggested that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two studies indicated that foam overlays caused adverse skin changes. Meta-analysis of three trials indicated that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevent pressure ulcers (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97). 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People at high risk of developing pressure ulcers should use higher-specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers are unclear, but alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre.

Effects of Using a High-Density Foam Pad Versus a Viscoelastic Polymer Pad on the Incidence of Pressure Ulcer Development During Spinal Surgery

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of high-density foam (HDF) pads versus viscoelastic polymer (VP) pads in the prevention of pressure ulcer formation during spinal surgery and their cost-effectiveness. Subjects were 30 patients who underwent spinal surgery for more than 3 hr in a prone position. One side of the chest and iliac crest was padded with HDF pads and the other side was padded with VP pads. An Xsensor® pressure measuring sheet was placed between the pad and the patient. Bilateral chest and iliac crest points were observed for the presence of pressure ulcers at 30 min after the operation. Results showed that a pressure ulcer had occurred at 9 of 120 compression points (7.5% of the total), 30 min after the operation. Risk evaluation showed that female gender, weight <50 kg, and body mass index (BMI) <18 kg/m2 as well as location (the iliac crest) were all risk factors for development of pressure ulcers. The most significant factor was BMI <18 kg/m2. The average and peak pressures measured at the points padded with the VP pads were significantly lower than those padded with the HDF pads. However, there was no significant difference between the VP and the HDF pads regarding ulcer prevention. Because the cost of a VP pad is 250 times greater than that of an HDF pad of similar size, the VP pad should only be considered for use in high-risk patients.

Validity of pressure ulcer diagnosis using digital photography

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of digital photographs for the assessment of the presence of pressure ulcers stage 2 or higher. Participants were 48 patients (28 white and 20 black) with pressure ulcers identified in the course of a wound specialist's routine clinical practice at the University of Maryland Medical Center. One pressure ulcer and one unaffected skin area were photographed on each participating patient. The gold standard diagnosis (stage 2 pressure ulcer vs. stage 1 or no pressure ulcer) was recorded by the wound specialist based on bedside examination. The photographs were reviewed blindly by another wound expert. The sensitivity of the blinded assessment was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91-100%). The specificity was 97% (95% CI 92-100%). The sensitivity and specificity were both 100% in the white patients. In black patients, the sensitivity and specificity were 92% (95% CI 75-100%) and 93% (95% CI 82-100%), respectively. These results suggest that the use of photographic images to assess the presence or absence of a pressure ulcer stage 2 or higher has a high degree of validity. Since blinded outcome assessment is one of the cornerstones of good clinical trial design, photography offers the potential to strengthen future studies.

Do pressure ulcers influence length of hospital stay in surgical cardiothoracic patients? A prospective evaluation

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The aim and objective of this study was to determine whether the occurrence of pressure ulcers following cardiothoracic surgery increases the length of hospitalisation.

BACKGROUND

Literature suggests that a pressure ulcer extends the length of hospital stay. The impact of pressure ulcers on length of hospital stay after cardiothoracic surgery is yet undetermined.

DESIGN

Prospective follow-up study.

METHODS

Two hundred and four patients admitted for elective cardiothoracic surgery and with an intensive care unit stay of >48 hours were included in a prospective cohort study. The course of the skin condition in relation to pressure ulcers was monitored during their stay in a teaching hospital. Length of hospital stay was compared between the group with and without pressure ulcers.

RESULTS

Hospital stay for cardiothoracic patients with and without pressure ulcers did not differ significantly (p = 0.23). Patients that developed pressure ulcers had a median hospital stay of 13 days (interquartile range: 9-19) vs. 12 days (interquartile range: 7-15) for patients without pressure ulcers. However, we observed that length of stay in the intensive care unit was significantly (p = 0.005) longer for patients with pressure ulcers. This was not associated with the occurrence of complications. However, the occurrence of pressure ulcers was significantly correlated with length of intensive care support in postoperative care.

CONCLUSION

Non-complicated pressure ulcers in postsurgery patients do not significantly increase the length of total hospital stay.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Health professionals need to recognise that patients who have undergone major surgery (such as cardiothoracic surgery) are prone to develop pressure ulcers. Despite the fact that pressure ulcers do not necessarily extend hospital stay, monitoring the skin condition remains of crucial importance for prevention and early detection as well as treatment of pressure ulcers and to minimise patient discomfort. Moreover, as pressure ulcers often originate in the operating room, prevention in the operating room should receive more attention.

Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as bedsores, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue due to pressure, shear or friction. They are common in the elderly and immobile and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving beds, mattresses and seat cushions are widely used as aids to prevention in both institutional and non-institutional settings.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review seeks to answer the following questions:(1) to what extent do pressure-relieving cushions, beds, mattress overlays and mattress replacements reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces?(2) how effective are different pressure-relieving surfaces in preventing pressure ulcers, compared to one another?

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this second update the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register was searched (28/2/08), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(2008 Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February Week 3 2008), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2008 Week 08) and Ovid CINAHL (1982 to February Week 3 2008). The reference sections of included studies were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published or unpublished, which assessed the effectiveness of beds, mattresses, mattress overlays, and seating cushions for the prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group, in any setting. Study selection was undertaken by at least two authors independently with a third author resolving uncertainty. RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they reported an objective, clinical outcome measure such as incidence and severity of new of pressure ulcers developed. Studies which only reported proxy outcome measures such as interface pressure were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial data were extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. The results from each study are presented as relative risk for dichotomous variables. Where deemed appropriate, similar studies were pooled in a meta analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

For this second update 11 trials met the inclusion criteria bringing the total number of RCTs included in the review to 52.Foam alternatives to the standard hospital foam mattress can reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk. The relative merits of alternating and constant low pressure devices are unclear. There is one high quality trial comparing the different alternating pressure devices for pressure ulcer prevention which suggests that alternating pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating pressure overlays.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table have been shown to reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two studies indicated that foam overlays resulted in adverse skin changes. Two trials indicated that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevented pressure ulcers. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the value of seat cushions, limb protectors and various constant low pressure devices as pressure ulcer prevention strategies.A study of Accident & Emergency trolley overlays did not identify a reduction in pressure ulcer incidence. There are tentative indications that foot waffle heel elevators, a particular low air loss hydrotherapy mattress and two types of operating theatre overlays are harmful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people at high risk of pressure ulcer development higher specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses should be used. The relative merits of higher-tech constant low pressure and alternating pressure for prevention are unclear but alternating pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating pressure overlays. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre. Seat cushions and overlays designed for use in Accident & Emergency settings have not been adequately evaluated.

Pressure ulcer risk assessment immediately after cardiac surgery--does it make a difference? A comparison of three pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments within a cardiac surgery population

The intensive care unit (ICU) population has a high risk of developing pressure ulcers. According to several national expert guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention, a risk assessment for every situation in which the patient's condition is changing should be performed using a standardized risk assessment instrument. The aims of this study were to (a) assess the number of patients who are 'at risk' for the development of pressure ulcer according to three commonly used risk assessment instruments in the intermediate period after cardiac surgery procedures, (b) assess which instrument best fits the situation of the ICU patients and c) decide if 'static' risk assessment with an instrument should be recommended. The modified Norton scale, the Braden scale and the 4-factor model were used in a convenience sample of 53 patients to assess the risk for development of pressure ulcer in the first 5 days (in ICU) after cardiac surgery procedures. The number of patients at risk were >60% by the 4-factor model, >70% by the modified Norton scale and >80% by the Braden scale. Sensitivity and specificity in all scales were not satisfactory. Forty-nine per cent (n= 26) of the patients developed a pressure ulcer in the operating room, 13% (n= 7) up to day 5 in the cardiac surgery ICU. Only 1.9% (n= 1) of the pressure ulcers were stage 2. The study concluded that the patients in the cardiac surgery ICU can be identified as at risk during the first 5 days after surgical procedure without continuously using a standardized risk assessment instrument in every changing condition. Individual risk assessment by a standardized risk assessment instrument is only recommended to enable initiation of preventive measures based on patient-specific risk factors.

Skin alterations of intact skin and risk factors associated with pressure ulcer development in surgical patients: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

The pathology literature suggests three types of pressure ulcer with six possible mechanisms leading to tissue breakdown. A limitation of current evidence is the difficulty in replicating the clinical situation and in determining the point at which a tissue assault becomes irreversible and results in tissue breakdown. In particular clinical observations of alteration in darkly pigmented skin, blanching erythema, non-blanching erythema and non-blanching erythema with other skin changes including induration, oedema, pain, warmth or discolouration have not been assessed in relation to subsequent skin/tissue loss and their pathophysiological and aetiological importance is not fully understood.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the validity of clinical signs of erythema as predictors of pressure ulcer development and identify variables which independently are predictive of Grade 2 pressure ulcer development.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

109 general, vascular and orthopaedic hospital patients, aged over 55 years with an expected length of stay of 5 days were recruited. Of these 97 were pressure ulcer free at baseline and/or had complete follow-up including 59 women and 38 men with a median age of 75 years (range 55-95).

SETTING

Single centre large acute UK NHS hospital.

METHODS

To identify clinical signs of erythema predictive of skin loss, the odds of pressure ulcer development were examined using logistic regression. To identify variables independently predictive of Grade 2 pressure ulcer development logistic regression modeling was undertaken.

RESULTS

There was significantly increased odds of pressure ulcer development associated with non-blanching erythema (7.98, p=0.002) and non-blanching erythema with other skin changes (9.17, p=0.035). Logistic regression modeling identified non-blanching erythema, pre-operative albumin, weight loss, and intra-operative minimum diastolic blood pressure, as independent predictors of Grade > or =2 pressure ulcer development.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-blanching erythema with or without other skin changes is distinct from normal skin/blanching erythema and is associated with subsequent pressure ulcer development.

The reliability of two observation methods of nonblanchable erythema, Grade 1 pressure ulcer

Accurate identification of nonblanchable erythema (NBE) is essential in pressure ulcer prevention. This descriptive study assessed interrater reliability between a researcher and trained nurses in observing blanchable erythema and NBE and examined the predictive validity and level of agreement between two observation methods for NBE. Findings suggest that the transparent disk method should be preferred to the finger method. The interrater reliability between the researcher and the nurses was substantial and was higher for the observations at the sacrum than for those at the heels. Educational level and years of nursing experience did not seem to influence interrater reliability.

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.

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.

Reliability of pressure ulcer classification and diagnosis

AIM

To assess the inter-rater reliability of the PRESSURE Trial pressure ulcer diagnosis (>/=Grade 2) and skin classification for all grades between the clinical research nurse (CRN) team leader and CRNs working across different hospital sites; and CRNs and ward-based nurses.

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Programme has funded a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternating pressure mattress overlays and mattress replacements - PRESSURE Trial. Outcome skin assessments were recorded by qualified ward-based nurses daily, and expert CRNs twice weekly.

METHOD

Paired assessments were undertaken and skin assessed on seven body sites. The per cent agreement between nurses in the diagnosis of a pressure ulcer was determined and the Kappa statistic and confidence intervals calculated. Per cent agreement between nurses in classifying skin for all grades was also determined.

RESULTS

Assessments were undertaken by 378 pairs: 16 paired patient assessments (107 site comparisons) by the CRN team leader and CRNs, and 362 paired patient assessments (2396 site comparisons) between CRNs and ward-based nurses. There was 100% agreement between the CRN team leader and CRNs in the diagnosis of a pressure ulcer, and the Kappa statistics indicated 'very good' agreement. There were only two (1.9%) disagreements in classifying skin for all grades between these nurses. The agreement in the diagnosis of a pressure ulcer between CRNs and ward-based nurses varied by skin site, ranging from 93.6% to 100%, with the Kappa statistics indicating 'good' and 'very good' agreement. However, there were 508 (21.2%) disagreements in classifying skin for all grades.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall agreement and Kappa statistics indicated 'very good' and 'good' agreement between expert nurses, and between expert nurses and qualified ward-based staff, respectively. However, the high prevalence of normal skin concealed clinically important disagreements in both the diagnosis of pressure ulcers and skin classification for all grades.

Support Surfaces: Beds, Mattresses, Overlays—Oh My!

The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers are major concerns for health care providers across the care continuum. The selection of a support surface is an important component of a comprehensive pressure ulcer prevention program. The accepted standard in clinical practice for pre-venting pressure ulcers and other complications of immobility is to either turn patients manually at frequent intervals or to use a pressure-reducing device. The longer a patient is immobilized, the more profound will be the systemic complications. The costs associated with the complications of immobility are staggering in terms of human suffering, physiologic damage,and real dollars. A variety of specialty beds, mattresses, and overlays have been designed to address pressure, shear, friction, and moisture. Limited data exist regarding the efficacy of these products. Clinicians want to choose a support surface for their patients on the basis of product performance. With the push toward establishing standards for testing methods and reporting information, clinicians can look forward to making support surface decisions based on the evidence and outcome data resulting from controlled clinical studies and expert opinion and consensus.