A systematic review of the effectiveness of pressure relieving cushions in reducing pressure injury

This systematic review seeks to gather and analyze the evidence on wheelchair pressure relieving cushions, and report on the optimal materials and designs for reducing pressure injury risk. The following research question guides this study: Which wheelchair cushions best reduce pressure injury risk? PIs continue to impact the health and function of wheelchairs users with significant mobility impairments. Pressure relieving cushions are typically prescribed to provide pressure relief in the pre-wound, wound, and post-wound phases. Presently, no published reviews analyze all of the commonly available cushion materials. Most comparison studies typically address a specific population such as spinal cord injury, or only a few styles of cushion design/materials. Results suggest air-cell cushions provide optimal pressure relief and shear reduction. Furthermore, small sample single cohort studies suggest off-loading cushions provide superior pressure relief beyond that of air-celled cushions but require additional research for greater generalizability.

User opinions about connected pressure detection systems to prevent wheelchair-related pressure injuries: An exploratory cross-sectional survey

About 1% of the world's population uses a wheelchair. Wheelchair use is a well-known risk of pressure injury. A connected pressure detection system could help to prevent this complication that is linked to long durations of sitting, provided that user expectations are understood. The aim of this study was to explore the needs of wheelchair users (WU) regarding connected pressure detection systems to prevent pressure injury. A cross-section survey-based study of WU was conducted, using an anonymous electronic questionnaire posted from July 2019 to June 2020. Eighty-eight people responded. The majority were power wheelchair users (72.7%); one third (33.0%) had already sustained a pressure injury; only 17.0% knew of the existence of pressure detection systems, nevertheless 78.4% believed that they could be useful in daily life. The feature that received the highest rating was a pressure warning alarm (4.2/5 points). The majority (71.6%) preferred reminder-alerts to be set according to their habits and not according to medical guidelines. In conclusion, pressure detecting systems were perceived as useful to prevent pressure injuries by both manual and power wheelchair users. Work is needed to inform potential users of the existence of such systems.

Incidence of Pressure Injury in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and quantitative analysis of pooled data was to assess the global incidence of pressure injury (PI), across time frames and countries, in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies published from database inception to January 2019, with only English language studies that reported the incidence of PIs in individuals with SCI were included. Study quality was assessed by a 14-item standardized checklist. We calculated the incidence of PIs as the number of new PIs in individuals with SCI and the total number of individuals with SCI during the study period. Findings are presented as incidence rate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

The search yielded 1652 studies; after studies were reviewed for inclusion criteria, 29 studies representing N = 82,722 patients were retained for data extraction. The global incidence of PIs was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.20-0.26). Data for regional distribution by country showed a pooled incidence of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28-0.57) in individuals with SCI in South American countries, 0.36 (95% CI, 0.16-0.56) in African countries, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.14-0.37) in European countries, 0.23 (95% CI, 0.19-0.27) in North American countries, and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.06-0.25) in Asian countries. The incidence was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.19-0.26) in developing countries versus 0.27 (95% CI, 0.17-0.37) in developed countries. From 2000 to 2009, the incidence of PIs in individuals with SCI was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.09-0.47). The incidence rate of PIs before 2000 and after 2009 was 0.23. The hospital- and community-acquired PI incidence was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.19-0.26) and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.20-0.32), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings indicate that more than 1 in 5 individuals with SCI will develop a PI. Individuals with SCI are at high risk of developing PI, especially in community settings or low- and middle-income developing countries. The findings highlight the importance of further investigation of risk factors and prevention and management strategies for PIs in individuals with SCI.