Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention.

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. 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. 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). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence.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 were extracted by one review author and checked by another.Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis. 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). 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 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 were extracted by one author and checked by another.Where appropriate, estimates from similar studies were pooled for meta-analysis. 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). 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.

Preventing pressure ulcers—Are pressure-redistributing support surfaces effective? A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Do pressure-relieving surfaces reduce pressure ulcers more than standard support surfaces? Are some types of pressure-relieving surfaces more effective than others? Included studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared...

Pressure ulcers are one of the most frequently registered complications in general surgery. To obtain insight into the incidence, cause, and consequences of pressure ulcers and to evaluate the value of pressure ulcer registration to assess quality of care. During the 9-year study period, 275 pressure ulcers were registered (5.8% of total registered complications). Age and female sex were independent risk factors for pressure ulcer development. Pressure ulcer classification was as follows: mild (53.3%), moderate (35.6%), severe (9.5%), and irreversible damage (1.5%). Patients undergoing hip surgery and major limb amputation were at risk for pressure ulcer development (10.4% and 8.8%, respectively). In most patients (89.5%), pressure ulcers had no consequences other than local wound therapy; in 12 patients (4.4%), pressure ulceration led to alteration in medication; in 15 patients (5.5%), length of hospital stay was prolonged; and four patients (0.4%) suffered from irreversible damage. The incidence of pressure ulcers is strongly correlated to sex, age, and indication of admittance. Most ulcers were classified as mild and had no consequences. The insight obtained into incidence, cause, and consequences of pressure ulcers can be used as an indicator of quality of provided care if adjusted for case mix and indication of operation.

This research was conducted for the purpose of determining the incidence of surgery-related pressure ulcer formation. Patients undergoing surgery are prone to develop pressure ulcers during surgery. Pressure ulcer incidence in surgery population is reported between 3.5% and 29.5%. Some of these factors that occur during surgery are being under pressure for a long time, remaining wet, and metabolic and circulatory changes related to the surgery and anaesthesia. The research was conducted as a prospective-analytic-descriptive study with 84 patients who agreed to participate in the study and who were 20 years old or older, having elective surgery, having a surgical procedure lasting two or more hours under general anaesthesia, and who had no risk for pressure ulcer development before surgery according to the Braden Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale. Research data were obtained using a Data Collection Form that has places for pre-, intra- and postoperative factors that may be related to surgery-related pressure ulcer development; a Body Mass Index Data Form and the Braden Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale. The Braden Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale was used to determine that patients had no risk for pressure ulcer development pre- and postoperatively and it was used for the purpose of establishing the patients risk status and areas at risk. Patients were monitored for pressure ulcers until the sixth postoperative day and risk status and areas at risk were determined. Data obtained in the research were analysed using percentage, chi-squared, McNemar and Cohen's Kappa tests for reliability between dependent groups. At the conclusion of the research, the findings obtained showed that 54.8% of the patients (n = 46) were observed to have Stage 1 pressure ulcers. A total of 41.3% of the patients had pressure ulcers in more than one region and 56.5% of these were of the erythema type. During the six-day postoperative monitoring, 97.9% of the pressure ulcers were observed in the first three days. The study made clear that surgery-related pressure ulcers are an important problem. (i) Determining the incidence of pressure ulcers during surgery in Turkey; (ii) For nurses to be able to prevent surgery-related pressure ulcers, it is necessary for them to direct their care by knowing factors that have a role in the development of pressure ulcers during surgery therefore this study will be to call Turkish nurse's attention to pressure ulcers during surgery.

We analysed the effect of different body features on contact area, interface pressure and pressure distribution of three different mattresses. Thirty-eight volunteers (age ranged from 17 to 73 years, 23 females) were asked to lie on three different mattresses in a random order: I, standard hospital foam mattresses; II, higher specification foam mattresses (Viscorelax Sure® ); III, constant low pressure devices (CareMedx® , AirSystems). Measurements were performed in supine position and in a 90° left- and right-sided position, respectively, using a full-body mat (pressure mapping device Xsensor X2-Modell). Outcome variables were contact area (CA) in cm(2) , mean interface pressure (IP) in mmHg and pressure distribution (PD) estimated as rate of low pressures between 5 and 33 mmHg on each mattress in percent. Mean CA was lowest in the standard hospital foam mattresses and increased in the higher specification foam mattresses and was highest in the constant low pressure device (supine position: 491 ± 86 cm(2) , 615 ± 95 cm(2) , 685 ± 116 cm(2) ). Mean IP was highest in the standard hospital foam mattresses and lower but similar in the higher specification foam mattresses and the constant low pressure devices (supine position: 22·3 ± 1·5 mmHg, 17·6 ± 1·7 mmHg, 17·6 ± 2·2 mmHg). Models were estimated for CA, IP and PD including the independent variables height, weight and waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR). They show that body morphology seems to play a minor role for CA, IP and PD, but very thin and tall patients and very small and obese people might benefit from different mattresses. Our data show that CA increases with increasing specification of mattresses. Higher specification foam mattresses and constant low pressure devices show similar IP, but constant low pressure devices show a wider pressure distribution. Body morphology should be considered to optimise prevention for single patients.

It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure ulcers. It was difficult to make accurate comparisons between foam dressings and other dressings due to the lack of data on reduction of wound size, complete wound healing, treatment costs, or insufficient time-frames. Quality of life and patient (or carer) acceptability/satisfaction associated with foam dressings were not systematically measured in any of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the included trials as low to very low. Clinicians need to carefully consider the lack of robust evidence in relation to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers when making treatment decisions, particularly when considering the wound management properties that may be offered by each dressing type and the care context.

Wound Healing Society 2015 update on guidelines for pressure ulcers.

Beds, mattresses and cushions for pressure sore prevention and treatment

Review objective The objective of this review is to establish whether using the Braden subscale mobility assessment is comparable to using the full Braden assessment scale. The specific review questions to be addressed are: 1. What preventive pressure ulcer nursing interventions are initiated based on assessment of mobility impairment alone or in comparison with the full Braden risk assessment scale? 2. What is the effect of using mobility assessment alone on incidence of hospital acquired pressure ulcers? Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider studies that include adult patients, 18 years and older, in acute care setting who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. At risk patients are those identified using Braden risk assessment scale as ‘at risk’, ‘moderate risk’, ‘high risk; and ‘very high risk’ for developing pressure ulcer6, 9 or the sub scale for impaired mobility as ‘completely immobile’, ‘very limited’ and ‘slightly limited’. Studies involving children only and studies conducted in the emergency department only or in the operating room only will be excluded from the review as they are not consistent with the review objective. Types of intervention(s)/Phenomena of interest This review will consider studies that include pressure ulcer risk identified using assessment of the subscale mobility impairment compared with full Braden scale assessment where available. Types of outcomes This review will consider the following primary outcome measures: • Whether patients in either study arm are more or less likely to receive appropriate preventative interventions, including, but not limited to protective mattresses, creams and skin barriers, vitamin supplements, patient positioning etc • Incidence of hospital acquired pressure ulcers Secondary outcome measures: • Reliability of mobility assessment ± Braden assessment • Frequency of assessment

To assess the effectiveness of pressure relieving beds, mattresses and cushions (support surfaces) in the prevention and treatment of pressure sores. Searches of 19 databases, hand searching of journals, conference proceedings, and bibliographies. Randomised controlled trials evaluating support surfaces for the prevention or treatment of pressure sores. There was no restriction on articles based on language or publication status. Data extraction and assessment of study quality was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Trials with similar patients, comparisons, and outcomes were pooled. Where pooling was inappropriate, trials are discussed in a narrative review. 29 RCTs of support surfaces for pressure sore prevention were identified. Some high specification foam mattresses were more effective than 'standard' hospital foam mattresses in moderate-high risk patients. Pressure relieving mattresses in the operating theatre reduced the incidence of pressure sores post-operatively. The relative merits of alternating and constant low pressure, and of the different alternating pressure devices are unclear. Seat cushions and simple, constant low-pressure devices have not been adequately evaluated. Limited evidence suggests that low air loss beds reduce the incidence of pressure sores in intensive care. 6 RCTs of support surfaces for pressure sore treatment were identified. There is good evidence that air-fluidised and low air loss beds improve healing rates. Seat cushions have not been adequately evaluated. 2 RCTs evaluated surfaces for both prevention and treatment in the same trial. PREVENTION - There is good evidence of the effectiveness of high specification foam over standard hospital foam, and pressure relief in the operating theatre. Treatment - There is good evidence of the effectiveness of air-fluidised and low air loss devices as treatments. Overall, however, it is impossible to determine the most effective surface for either prevention or treatment.

The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The primary outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcers. Secondary outcomes included costs and patient comfort. This study was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were consulted: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCOhost interface), Science direct, and Web of Science. In addition, a hand search through reviews, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies. Potential studies were reviewed and assessed by 2 independent authors based on the title and abstract. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of the studies were based on a consensus between the authors. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: reporting an original study; the outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcer categories I to IV when using a static air mattress overlay and/or in comparison with other pressure-redistribution device(s); and studies published in English, French, and Dutch. No limitation was set on study setting, design, and date of publication. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Tool. Results were reported in a descriptive way to reflect the exploratory nature of the review. The searches included 13 studies: randomised controlled trials (n = 11) and cohort studies (n = 2). The mean pressure ulcer incidence figures found in the different settings were, respectively, 7.8% pressure ulcers of categories II to IV in nursing homes, 9.06% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in intensive care settings, and 12% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in orthopaedic wards. Seven comparative studies reported a lower incidence in the groups of patients on a static air mattress overlay. Three studies reported a statistical (P < .1) lower incidence compared with a standard hospital mattress (10 cm thick, density 35 kg/m3 ), a foam mattress (15 cm thick), and a viscoelastic foam mattress (15 cm thick). No significant difference in incidence, purchase costs, and patient comfort was found compared with dynamic air mattresses. This review focused on the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. There are indications that these mattress overlays are more effective in preventing pressure ulcers compared with the use of a standard mattress or a pressure-reducing foam mattress in nursing homes and intensive care settings. However, interpretation of the evidence should be performed with caution due to the wide variety of methodological and/or reporting quality levels of the included studies.

Electrical Stimulation Therapy Increases Rate of Healing of Pressure Ulcers in Community-Dwelling People With Spinal Cord Injury