Effectiveness of Multilayered Polyurethane Foam Dressings to Prevent Hospital-Acquired Sacral Pressure Injuries in Patients With Hip Fracture: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Operative Positioning and Intraoperative-Acquired Pressure Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively assess the association between operative positioning with intraoperative-acquired pressure injury (IAPI) development.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 455 patients who underwent surgery between October 2020 and January 2021. The authors grouped patients by operative positioning into the prone position and nonprone position groups. They used propensity-score matching at a 1:2 ratio to control for preoperative confounders, applied multiple logistic regression models to analyze the effects between positioning and IAPI, and assessed interactions of positioning and intraoperative factors on IAPI.

RESULTS

The final enrollment was 92 cases in the prone position group and 181 in the nonprone position group. Multivariable logistic analysis suggested that the prone position had a 2.92 times higher risk of IAPI than the nonprone position (odds ratio, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.13-7.57; P = .026). Subgroup analysis showed a significant multiplicative interaction between positioning and foam dressing on IAPI (P < .05), which was not observed in other intraoperative factors (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that prone operative positioning can increase IAPI risk. Patients in the prone position may particularly benefit from using dressings in Chinese populations. Further large-sample longitudinal studies are required to confirm these findings.

The Effect of Prophylactic Silicone Dressings on the Incidence of Pressure Injuries on Patients in the Acute Care Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To explore the effect of silicone dressings on the prevention of pressure injuries in patients cared for in the acute care setting. Three main comparisons were explored: silicone dressing versus no dressing, all anatomical areas; silicone dressing versus no dressing on the sacrum; and silicone dressing versus no dressing on the heels.

METHODS

Using a systematic review methodology, published randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials were included. The search was conducted from December 2020 to January 2021 using CINAHL, full text on EBSCOhost, MEDLINE on EBSCOhost, and Cochrane databases. The search returned 130 studies; 10 met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a predesigned extraction tool. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence was appraised using a software program specifically designed for this purpose.

RESULTS

Silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries compared to no dressings (relative risk [RR]: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.53; moderate certainty evidence). Furthermore, silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries on the sacrum compared to no dressings (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.62; moderate certainty evidence). Finally, silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries on the heels compared to no dressings (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.62; moderate certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

There is moderate certainty evidence of the effect of silicone dressings as a component of a pressure injury prevention strategy. The main limiting factor in the study designs was a high risk of performance and detection bias. Although this is a challenge to achieve in trials such as these, consideration should be given to how the effect of this could be minimized. A further issue is the lack of head-to-head trials that limits clinicians' abilities to determine whether any of the products in this category are more effective than others.

Use of a Sacral Foam Dressing to Prevent Pressure Injury in At-Risk Subacute Hospitalized Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this pilot study was to inform a future trial aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing plus standard care to standard care only to reduce sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk older adults admitted to a subacute hospital setting.

DESIGN

A pilot study with a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial design.

SAMPLE AND SETTING

One hundred thirty participants were randomized (intervention n = 66, 50.8%; control n = 64, 49.2%). Protocol violations occurred in 48 participants (intervention n = 33, 68.8%; control n = 15, 31.3%). The study setting was a subacute hospital inpatient care unit located in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention (prophylactic dressing plus standard care) or control group (standard care). Standard care included regular PI risk and skin assessments, and selection and implementation of preventive interventions (eg, support surfaces and increased repositioning) from a PI prevention care plan. The sacral dressing was applied for intervention participants immediately following recruitment. Ward and research staff collected data and assessed skin integrity daily; participants were followed up until onset of a PI or up to 28 days without PI occurrence. In addition, retrospective chart reviews were undertaken to verify PI occurrences. Patient comfort and dressing utility were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two (3.0%) participants in the intervention group and 1 (1.6%) in the control group developed a sacral PI. The difference was not statistically significant. Only 1 PI was recorded prospectively, while 2 PIs were identified via retrospective chart review. Participants rated dressing comfort highly, particularly during the first 2 weeks, and nurses rated utility highly. Based on the intention-to-treat results, a sample size of 1799 per arm would be required in a definitive trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive trial is feasible and warranted. However, the large sample size required in a definitive trial indicates the need for multiple sites.

Prophylactic sacral protective dressings' effect on preventing pressure injury: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. A systematic literature search up to July 2021 was performed, and 11 studies included 5150 community or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care at the start of the study; 2832 of them were using sacral protective dressings and 2318 were given standard care with no sacral protective dressings. They were reporting relationships between the effects of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effects of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury using the dichotomous method with a random or fixed-effect model. Sacral protective dressings had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.53, P < .001) compared with standard care with no sacral protective dressings in community- or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care. Sacral protective dressings had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries compared with standard care with no sacral protective dressings in community- or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.