OBJECTIVES: To examine interface pressure characteristics for two alternating air cell mattresses used for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in a spinal cord injury population. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of Dynamic Flotation System (DFS) mattress and the Pegasus Airwave Mattress. Subjects acted as their own controls. SETTING: Veterans Affairs Medical Center Spinal Cord Injury Unit. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 15 subjects with spinal cord injuries. INTERVENTIONS: Minimum, maximum, and average interface pressures, and interface pressure range were measured by use of a force-sensing array system. The sacrum was chosen as the area of interest. Recordings lasted 9.5-10 minutes. Analyses were performed on 19 subjects in the supine and 45-degree upright positions for both mattresses. RESULTS: Maximum and average interface pressures and interface pressure ranges were significantly higher, whereas minimum interface pressures were significantly lower on the Pegasus vs the DFS. For either mattress, the 45-degree position resulted in significantly greater interface pressures. There was no consistent correlation found between interface pressures and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Interface pressure characteristics of these two mattresses are very different, and neither mattress retains performance in the 45-degree position. Which interface pressure characteristic is most clinically relevant remains undetermined. Avoidance of the 45-degree sitting position is recommended.
OBJECTIVES: To examine interface pressure characteristics for two alternating air cell mattresses used for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in a spinal cord injury population. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of Dynamic Flotation System (DFS) mattress and the Pegasus Airwave Mattress. Subjects acted as their own controls. SETTING: Veterans Affairs Medical Center Spinal Cord Injury Unit. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 15 subjects with spinal cord injuries. INTERVENTIONS: Minimum, maximum, and average interface pressures, and interface pressure range were measured by use of a force-sensing array system. The sacrum was chosen as the area of interest. Recordings lasted 9.5-10 minutes. Analyses were performed on 19 subjects in the supine and 45-degree upright positions for both mattresses. RESULTS: Maximum and average interface pressures and interface pressure ranges were significantly higher, whereas minimum interface pressures were significantly lower on the Pegasus vs the DFS. For either mattress, the 45-degree position resulted in significantly greater interface pressures. There was no consistent correlation found between interface pressures and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Interface pressure characteristics of these two mattresses are very different, and neither mattress retains performance in the 45-degree position. Which interface pressure characteristic is most clinically relevant remains undetermined. Avoidance of the 45-degree sitting position is recommended.