Literature DB >> 21910831

A comparative assessment of interface pressures generated by four surgical theatre heel pressure ulcer prophylactics.

Mario Malkoun1, Jacqueline Huber, David Huber.   

Abstract

Current heel protection devices used in the operating room do not comply with the consensus document of the European and National (North American) Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panels. A complying prototype has been tested. Prospective cohort study comparing interface pressures. While using the prototype device, the heel interface pressure is significantly [mean 0·0 mmHg, standard deviation (SD) 0·0] less than the viscose elastic gel (VEG) mat (mean 174·8 mmHg, SD 64·5), the Action(®) heel block (mean 182·3 mmHg, SD 70·8) and the theatre table (mean 193·2 mmHg, SD 57·1). At the Achilles tendon, the prototype device (mean 16·2 mmHg, SD 19·0) is significantly superior to the Oasis (mean 183·7 mmHg, SD 67·4) and Action(®) heel blocks (mean 112·3 mmHg, SD 64·7). At the lateral malleolus, the prototype device (mean 0·0, SD 0·0) is better than the Action(®) (mean 24·3 mmHg, SD 53·4) and Oasis heel blocks (mean 20·9 mmHg, SD 49·2). At the calf, the prototype (mean 53·7 mmHg, SD 23·0) imposed more pressure than all other devices tested but was not statistically significant compared with the theatre table or the VEG mat. It is possible to design a device that protects the heel, lateral malleolus and Achilles tendon without causing hyperextension of the knee and consequent popliteal vein compression, thereby complying with the above guidelines.
© 2011 The Authors. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Medicalhelplines.com Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21910831      PMCID: PMC7951007          DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2011.00865.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Wound J        ISSN: 1742-4801            Impact factor:   3.315


  9 in total

1.  When are the seeds of postoperative pressure sores sown?. Often during surgery.

Authors:  M Bliss; B Simini
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-10-02

Review 2.  UK, USA and Canada: how do their pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data compare?

Authors:  E Kaltenthaler; M D Whitfield; S J Walters; R L Akehurst; S Paisley
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.072

3.  Coming to consensus on deep tissue injury.

Authors:  Karen Zulkowski; Diane Langemo; Mary Ellen Posthauer
Journal:  Adv Skin Wound Care       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.347

4.  Popliteal vein compression under general anaesthesia.

Authors:  D E Huber; J P Huber
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2008-12-25       Impact factor: 7.069

5.  Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study.

Authors:  Katrien Vanderwee; Michael Clark; Carol Dealey; Lena Gunningberg; Tom Defloor
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  An in-depth look at pressure sores using monolithic silicon pressure sensors.

Authors:  K M Le; B L Madsen; P W Barth; G A Ksander; J B Angell; L M Vistnes
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  National Prevalence and Incidence Study: 6-year sequential acute care data.

Authors:  Kathy T Whittington; Robin Briones
Journal:  Adv Skin Wound Care       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.347

8.  Popliteal vein entrapment in the normal population.

Authors:  M Leon; N Volteas; N Labropoulos; H Hajj; E Kalodiki; C Fisher; P Chan; G Belcaro; A N Nicolaides
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Surg       Date:  1992-11

9.  Reswick and Rogers pressure-time curve for pressure ulcer risk. Part 2.

Authors:  A Gefen
Journal:  Nurs Stand       Date:  2009 Jul 22-28
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.