Literature DB >> 21999615

Prevention of pressure ulcer: interaction of body characteristics and different mattresses.

Theodoros Moysidis1, Wolfgang Niebel, Katharina Bartsch, Irene Maier, Nils Lehmann, Michael Nonnemacher, Knut Kroeger.   

Abstract

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.
© 2011 The Authors. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Medicalhelplines.com Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21999615      PMCID: PMC7950942          DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2011.00814.x

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  The measurement of interface pressure and its role in soft tissue breakdown.

Authors:  I D Swain; D L Bader
Journal:  J Tissue Viability       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.932

Review 2.  Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review.

Authors:  Pedro L Pancorbo-Hidalgo; Francisco Pedro Garcia-Fernandez; Isabel Ma Lopez-Medina; Carmen Alvarez-Nieto
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.187

3.  Comparative study of pressure distribution at the user-cushion interface with different cushions in a population with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  A Gil-Agudo; A De la Peña-González; A Del Ama-Espinosa; E Pérez-Rizo; E Díaz-Domínguez; A Sánchez-Ramos
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2009-05-17       Impact factor: 2.063

Review 4.  Pressure and shear: their effects on support surface choice.

Authors:  R Jay
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.629

5.  Repeatability of subject/bed interface pressure measurements.

Authors:  V Allen; D W Ryan; A Murray
Journal:  J Biomed Eng       Date:  1993-07

6.  To what extent can pressure relieving surfaces help reduce the costs of pressure ulcers?

Authors:  Sarah J Whitehead; Paul Trueman
Journal:  Nurs Times       Date:  2010 Aug 3-9

7.  The National Expert Standard Pressure Ulcer Prevention in Nursing and pressure ulcer prevalence in German health care facilities: a multilevel analysis.

Authors:  Doris Wilborn; Ulrike Grittner; Theo Dassen; Jan Kottner
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.036

8.  Pressure ulcer: Prevention protocols and prevalence.

Authors:  Doris Wilborn; Ruud Halfens; Theo Dassen
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  Physiological response of the heel tissue on pressure relief between three alternating pressure air mattresses.

Authors:  Richard H M Goossens; Shyam V S Rithalia
Journal:  J Tissue Viability       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.932

10.  Comparison of total body tissue interface pressure of specialized pressure-relieving mattresses.

Authors:  William L Hickerson; George M Slugocki; Reuben L Thaker; Robert Dunkan; John F Bishop; Judy K Parks
Journal:  J Long Term Eff Med Implants       Date:  2004
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Prevention of pressure ulcers with a static air support surface: A systematic review.

Authors:  Brecht Serraes; Martin van Leen; Jos Schols; Ann Van Hecke; Sofie Verhaeghe; Dimitri Beeckman
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Reduced pressure for fewer pressure ulcers: can real-time feedback of interface pressure optimise repositioning in bed?

Authors:  Lena Gunningberg; Cheryl Carli
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Posture and firmness changes in a pressure-relieving air mattress affect cough strength in elderly people with dysphagia.

Authors:  Norimichi Kamikawa; Hironobu Hamada; Kiyokazu Sekikawa; Hikaru Yamamoto; Yoshiya Fujika; Teruki Kajiwara; Fumiya Aizawa; Ippo Otoyama
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Feldenkrais 'Functional Integration' Increases Body Contact Surface in the Supine Position: A Randomized-Controlled Experimental Study.

Authors:  Matthias Brummer; Harald Walach; Stefan Schmidt
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-10-24

Review 5.  Safety Assessment of Rehabilitation Robots: A Review Identifying Safety Skills and Current Knowledge Gaps.

Authors:  Jule Bessler; Gerdienke B Prange-Lasonder; Leendert Schaake; José F Saenz; Catherine Bidard; Irene Fassi; Marcello Valori; Aske Bach Lassen; Jaap H Buurke
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2021-03-22

6.  Active Body Pressure Relief System with Time-of-Flight Optical Pressure Sensors for Pressure Ulcer Prevention.

Authors:  Kang-Ho Lee; Yeong-Eun Kwon; Hyukjin Lee; Yongkoo Lee; Joonho Seo; Ohwon Kwon; Shin-Won Kang; Dongkyu Lee
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 3.576

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.