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

Preventing pressure injury in open-heart surgical patients: A systematic review

Background

Cardiac surgical patients are highly prone to developing surgery-related Pressure injuries (PIs). Prevention of PIs is an important patient safety priority in healthcare settings and patients care. So the aim of this study is to detect the effectiveness of prevention strategies to decrease PIs prevalence and incidence in patients undergoing open heart surgery.

Method

We identified studies through Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and ProQuest databases from inception through September 2022 with restrictions on the English language. Cochrane RoB 2, JBI, and NIH checklist were carried out as critical appraisal Tools to investigate the studies risk of bias. Finally, 10 studies with a total sample No. 1348, which fulfilled eligibility criteria were included in final systematic review.

Result

Most common interventions investigated in included studies were addressing impairments skin care which included the use of multilayer silicone foam, Care bundle and multiple intervention programs, alternative head inflatable pads, pressure-reducing foam mattresses, and electric bed frames as the effective PIs Prevention (PIP) strategies. While repositioning is one of the important causes mentioned in most PIP protocols, there was not adequate evidence to recommend any special turning regimens for PIP.

Conclusion

Given current evidence, multilayer silicone foam, Care bundle and multiple intervention programs, alternative inflatable head pads, pressure-reducing foam mattresses, and electric bed frames are effective strategies to prevent pressure ulcers. Further investigations are needed to specify the cost-effectiveness of mentioned strategies and RCTs to determine other PIP strategies such as repositioning and mobilization, nutritional supplementation, creams, and co-interventions effects.

Sub-epidermal moisture versus traditional and visual skin assessments to assess pressure ulcer risk in surgery patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the predictive ability of subepidermal moisture (SEM) measurement versus traditional risk assessment and visual skin assessment (VSA) as means of detecting early pressure ulcer (PU) damage development among adults undergoing surgery.

METHOD

A non-experimental, comparative, descriptive cohort study design was used. Following ethical approval, participants who had given their informed written consent had their skin assessed over the areas that were weight-bearing during surgery, using VSA and the SEM measurement. Visual PUs were graded according to the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel ulcer grading system. Assessments took place preoperatively, then daily on the ward, beginning on day one postoperatively and continuing for three days or until discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 231 participants, who had a mean age of 57.50 years, 55.8% (n=129) were male. The most common comorbidity was cardiology/vascular (n=42; 18.2%). Just over half (52.4%; n=121) underwent orthopaedic surgery and 47.6% (n=110) underwent non-orthopaedic surgery; 70% (n=163) received a general anaesthetic and 43% (n=100) were in the supine decubitus position during surgery. PU incidence was 51% (n=116), according to SEM measurement, and 3% (n=7) according to VSA. Among the seven participants who developed a visual PU, 10 PUs at stage 1 developed (31%); some patients developed more than one PU. Of the participants who had assessments for three days postoperatively, 94% (n=61) had a persistently high SEM delta on day three. The variables that emerged as statistically significantly related to abnormal SEM measurement deltas among these participants were: surgery duration (p=0.038); having orthopaedic surgery (p=0.020); supine surgical position (p=0.003); spinal anaesthetic type (p=0.0001); and Waterlow and Braden mobility subscale day one postoperatively (p=0.0001). None of the variables had a statistically significant influence on abnormal VSA.

CONCLUSION

Surgical patients, because of immobility, are vulnerable to the action of compression and shear forces. These forces cause changes at a cellular level that trigger inflammation, which is a precursor to early tissue damage. SEM measurement can detect this tissue damage from the increase in the underlying tissue water content that results from inflammation. From the findings of this study, SEM measurement is very promising in the detection of early tissue damage in those at risk of PU development among the surgical population.

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.

Assessment of the risk of pressure ulcer during the perioperative period: Adaptation of the Munro scale to Turkish

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted to adapt the Munro Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale (Munro Scale) to Turkish and to test its validity and reliability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the methodological study, the data were collected using the patient identification form, the Braden Scale, and the Munro Scale. A total of 188 patients were diagnosed for the risk of preoperative and intraoperative pressure ulcer, and then re-evaluated in the recovery room and in their bed.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 81 (43.1%) males and 107 (56.9%) females with a mean age of 51.98 ± 16.87. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy test was 0.588 and the Bartlett's test was 430.471. The results of goodness of fit indices were not as expected value in the confirmatory factor analysis. In the exploratory factor analysis, it was determined that the factor loadings of the Munro Scale varied between 0.336 and 0.873 and explained 62% of the total variance. In the parallel-form method performed for the reliability of the scale, it was observed that there was a weak and negative correlation between the total scores of the Munro Scale and Braden Scales before the surgery and a negative and moderate correlation between the total scores after the surgery. The total Cronbach's alpha value was found to be 0.504. In the reliability analysis of the scale, interrater correlation coefficients were found to be 0.865-0.998.

CONCLUSIONS

The Munro Scale can be used to assess the risk of pressure injuries in perioperative patients and may help nurses to identify high-risk patients.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Critical biomechanical and clinical insights concerning tissue protection when positioning patients in the operating room: A scoping review

An optimal position of the patient during operation may require a compromise between the best position for surgical access and the position a patient and his or her tissues can tolerate without sustaining injury. This scoping review analysed the existing, contemporary evidence regarding surgical positioning-related tissue damage risks, from both biomechanical and clinical perspectives, focusing on the challenges in preventing tissue damage in the constraining operating room environment, which does not allow repositioning and limits the use of dynamic or thick and soft support surfaces. Deep and multidisciplinary aetiological understanding is required for effective prevention of intraoperatively acquired tissue damage, primarily including pressure ulcers (injuries) and neural injuries. Lack of such understanding typically leads to misconceptions and increased risk to patients. This article therefore provides a comprehensive aetiological description concerning the types of potential tissue damage, vulnerable anatomical locations, the risk factors specific to the operative setting (eg, the effects of anaesthetics and instruments), the complex interactions between the tissue damage risk and the pathophysiology of the surgery itself (eg, the inflammatory response to the surgical incisions), risk assessments for surgical patients and their limitations, and available (including emerging) technologies for positioning. The present multidisciplinary and integrated approach, which holistically joins the bioengineering and clinical perspectives, is unique to this work and has not been taken before. Close collaboration between bioengineers and clinicians, such as demonstrated here, is required to revisit the design of operating tables, support surfaces for surgery, surgical instruments for patient stabilisation, and for surgical access. Each type of equipment and its combined use should be evaluated and improved where needed with regard to the two major threats to tissue health in the operative setting: pressure ulcers and neural damage.

Use of an Alternating Inflatable Head Pad inPatients Undergoing Open Heart Surgery

BACKGROUND Preoperative symptoms like occipital pressure ulcers and alopecia areata (AA) significantly lowered patient quality of life. Therefore, preoperative nursing was in need of investigation. This study aimed to compare effects of an alternating inflatable head pad and a gel pad on occurrence of postoperative pressure ulcers and AA in patients undergoing open heart surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a prospective study. We allocated randomly 120 patients undergoing surgery (3-7 h) in the Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital affiliated to Qingdao University, China from January to October 2015 to the control (gel head pad) or the experimental (alternating inflatable head pad) group (n=60 per group). The incidence and severity of occipital pressure ulcer were graded by the classification system of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP). The degree of occipital alopecia was measured by hair pull test. This study used the t test and chi-square analysis. All statistics were analyzed by SPSS 21.0. RESULTS Compared with the control group, there was a significantly lower incidence and severity of occipital pressure ulcer and alopecia in the experimental group (9 cases/60 cases vs. 1 case/60 cases, P<0.01). Moreover, multivariate analysis showed the risk of developing occipital pressure ulcer after surgery was also obviously lower in the experimental group (OR 1.449-120.798; P<0.005). Hair pull test revealed that fewer patients in the experimental group had a hair loss over 10%. CONCLUSIONS The alternating inflatable head pad was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of occipital pressure ulcer and alopecia associated with surgery, which benefited the postoperative nursing and improved patient quality of life.

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.

Soft silicone foam dressing is more effective than polyurethane film dressing for preventing intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers in spinal surgery patients: the Border Operating room Spinal Surgery (BOSS) trial in Japan

Preventing intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers (IAPUs) in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position using a Relton-Hall frame is challenging. We investigated the efficacy of soft silicone foam dressings in preventing IAPUs. A prospective dual-center sham study was conducted among patients undergoing elective spinal surgery in a general hospital and a university hospital in Japan. The incidence of IAPUs that developed when soft silicone foam dressings and polyurethane film dressings were used was compared on two sides in the same patient. IAPUs developed on the chest in 11 of 100 patients (11%). Polyurethane film dressings were associated with a significantly higher rate of IAPUs than soft silicone foam dressings (11 versus 3, P = 0·027). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a diastolic blood pressure of <50 mmHg (P = 0·025, OR 3·74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1·18-13·08) and the length of surgery (by 1 hour: P = 0·038, OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·03-2·64) were independently associated with the development of IAPUs. The use of soft silicone foam dressings reduced the risk of IAPUs (P = 0·019, OR 0·23, 95% CI 0·05-0·79) and was more effective than film dressings for preventing IAPUs in spinal surgery patients.

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.

Retrospective review of predisposing factors for intraoperative pressure ulcer development

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Anesthesiology department of a university medical center.

MEASUREMENTS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Development of a nursing intervention to prepare frail older patients for cardiac surgery (the PREDOCS programme), following phase one of the guidelines of the Medical Research Council

Background:

In older patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, the timely identification and preparation of patients at risk for frequent postoperative hospital complications provide opportunities to reduce the risk of these complications.

Aims:

We developed an evidence-based, multi-component nursing intervention (Prevention of Decline in Older Cardiac Surgery Patients; the PREDOCS programme) for application in the preadmission period to improve patients’ physical and psychosocial condition to reduce their risk of postoperative complications. This paper describes in detail the process used to design and develop this multi-component intervention.

Methods:

In a team of researchers, experts, cardiac surgeons, registered cardiac surgery nurses, and patients, the revised guidelines for developing and evaluating complex interventions of the Medical Research Council (MRC) were followed, including identifying existing evidence, identifying and developing theory and modelling the process and outcomes. Additionally, the criteria for reporting the development of complex interventions in healthcare (CReDECI) were followed.

Results:

The intervention is administered during a consultation by the nurse two to four weeks before the surgery procedure. The consultation includes three parts: a general part for all patients, a second part in which patients with an increased risk are identified, and a third part in which selected patients are informed about how to prepare themselves for the hospital admission to reduce their risk.

Conclusions:

Following the MRC guidelines, an extended, stepwise, multi-method procedure was used to develop the multi-component nursing intervention to prepare older patients for cardiac surgery, creating transparency in the assumed working mechanisms. Additionally, a detailed description of the intervention is provided.

Preadmission interventions to prevent postoperative complications in older cardiac surgery patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE(S)

The literature on postoperative complications in cardiac surgery patients shows high incidences of postoperative complications such as delirium, depression, pressure ulcer, infection, pulmonary complications and atrial fibrillation. These complications are associated with functional and cognitive decline and a decrease in the quality of life after discharge. Several studies attempted to prevent one or more postoperative complications by preoperative interventions. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of both single and multiple component preadmission interventions designed to prevent postoperative complications.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature following the PRISMA statement guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 1335 initial citations, 31 were subjected to critical appraisal. Finally, 23 studies were included, of which we derived a list of interventions that can be applied in the preadmission period to effectively reduce postoperative depression, infection, pulmonary complications, atrial fibrillation, prolonged intensive care unit stay and hospital stay in older elective cardiac surgery patients. No high quality studies were found describing effective interventions to prevent postoperative delirium. We did not find studies specifically targeting the prevention of pressure ulcers in this patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-component approaches that include different single interventions have the strongest effect in preventing postoperative depression, pulmonary complications, prolonged intensive care unit stay and hospital stay. Postoperative infection can be best prevented by disinfection with chlorhexidine combined with immune-enhancing nutritional supplements. Atrial fibrillation might be prevented by ingestion of N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. High quality studies are urgently needed to evaluate preadmission preventive strategies to reduce postoperative delirium or pressure ulcers in older elective cardiac surgery patients.

Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors independently predictive of pressure ulcer development in adult patient populations?

DESIGN

A systematic review of primary research was undertaken, based upon methods recommended for effectiveness questions but adapted to identify observational risk factor studies.

DATA SOURCES

Fourteen electronic databases were searched, each from inception until March 2010, with hand searching of specialist journals and conference proceedings; contact with experts and a citation search. There was no language restriction.

REVIEW METHODS

Abstracts were screened, reviewed against the eligibility criteria, data extracted and quality appraised by at least one reviewer and checked by a second. Where necessary, statistical review was undertaken. We developed an assessment framework and quality classification based upon guidelines for assessing quality and methodological considerations in the analysis, meta-analysis and publication of observational studies. Studies were classified as high, moderate, low and very low quality. Risk factors were categorised into risk factor domains and sub-domains. Evidence tables were generated and a summary narrative synthesis by sub-domain and domain was undertaken.

RESULTS

Of 5462 abstracts retrieved, 365 were identified as potentially eligible and 54 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The 54 studies included 34,449 patients and acute and community patient populations. Seventeen studies were classified as high or moderate quality, whilst 37 studies (68.5%) had inadequate numbers of pressure ulcers and other methodological limitations. Risk factors emerging most frequently as independent predictors of pressure ulcer development included three primary domains of mobility/activity, perfusion (including diabetes) and skin/pressure ulcer status. Skin moisture, age, haematological measures, nutrition and general health status are also important, but did not emerge as frequently as the three main domains. Body temperature and immunity may be important but require further confirmatory research. There is limited evidence that either race or gender is important.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall there is no single factor which can explain pressure ulcer risk, rather a complex interplay of factors which increase the probability of pressure ulcer development. The review highlights the limitations of over-interpretation of results from individual studies and the benefits of reviewing results from a number of studies to develop a more reliable overall assessment of factors which are important in affecting patient susceptibility.

A longitudinal study of the incidence of pressure sores and the associated risks and strategies adopted in Italian operating theatres

To explore the incidence of intraoperative pressure sores, the associated risk factors and the preventive strategies adopted by nurses, we adopted a longitudinal study in a 900-bed teaching hospital with multiple operating theatres, located in the North of Italy. Patients who underwent major surgery were evaluated four times: at the moment of operating theatre admission, at operating theatre discharge, and on their third and sixth postoperative day. Of the patients included (n = 102) who had an average age of 62.3 years (range 20-87), 12.7% (13/102) developed a pressure ulcer in the operating theatre; 46.1% (6/13) of these ulcers were still present on the third postoperative day. Some health conditions (diabetes mellitus, cardiac diseases) and intra-operative factors (lying on the operating table for more than 6.15 hours, intraoperative hypothermia) are associated with the occurrence of pressure sores.

Surgical risk factors in geriatric perioperative patients

The geriatric population is growing in number, and risk factors commonly seen in this population of patients can seriously affect the outcomes of surgical interventions. Identification of surgical risk factors (eg, hearing and vision loss, inadequate nutrition, preexisting conditions) and early intervention by the perioperative nurse to plan for, correct, or accommodate physical limitations often can minimize or eliminate problems and potential complications.

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.

Surgical positioning: evidence for nursing care

The goal of surgical positioning is to promote access to the surgical site. It should be carried out correctly to ensure patient safety and prevent complications. This integrative literature review aimed to search for and evaluate available evidences in literature about nursing care related to surgical positioning of adult patients in the intraoperative period. Pubmed, Cinahl and Lilacs databases were used for the selection of the articles. The sample consisted of 20 articles. The synthesis of the available evidence showed that included studies focused on three main topics: risk factors for developing complications, complications due to surgical positioning and nursing care related to surgical positioning. Among the gaps in the research theme, the need to conduct studies on effective devices for each type of surgical position is highlighted.

Estudos clínicos sobre úlcera por pressão

O estudo teve como objetivo sintetizar os estudos clínicos sobre úlcera por pressão (UP). Elaborou-se uma revisão integrativa através de busca de artigos nas bases de dados MEDLINE, Portal de Evidências, LILACS, e o periódico Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), referência na área de ensaios clínicos em enfermagem, no período de 2004-2009. Selecionou-se 14 artigos e a análise destes permitiu a identificação de quatro categorias temáticas envolvendo a caracterização dos estudos, da amostra, das intervenções utilizadas, bem como dos resultados e conclusões alcançadas. Os resultados indicaram essencialmente o enfoque de estudos direcionados a temática da prevenção e a ausência desse tipo de estudo em nosso país. Reconhecer as limitações envolvidas nesse aspecto e buscar superá-las proporcionará avanços e impulsionará o desenvolvimento de pesquisas com fortes evidências clínicas que subsidiem a prática profissional da enfermagem.

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.

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.