Literature DB >> 32496025

Critical biomechanical and clinical insights concerning tissue protection when positioning patients in the operating room: A scoping review.

Amit Gefen1, Sue Creehan2, Joyce Black3.   

Abstract

An optimal position of the patient during operation may require a compromise between the best position for surgical access and the position a patient and his or her tissues can tolerate without sustaining injury. This scoping review analysed the existing, contemporary evidence regarding surgical positioning-related tissue damage risks, from both biomechanical and clinical perspectives, focusing on the challenges in preventing tissue damage in the constraining operating room environment, which does not allow repositioning and limits the use of dynamic or thick and soft support surfaces. Deep and multidisciplinary aetiological understanding is required for effective prevention of intraoperatively acquired tissue damage, primarily including pressure ulcers (injuries) and neural injuries. Lack of such understanding typically leads to misconceptions and increased risk to patients. This article therefore provides a comprehensive aetiological description concerning the types of potential tissue damage, vulnerable anatomical locations, the risk factors specific to the operative setting (eg, the effects of anaesthetics and instruments), the complex interactions between the tissue damage risk and the pathophysiology of the surgery itself (eg, the inflammatory response to the surgical incisions), risk assessments for surgical patients and their limitations, and available (including emerging) technologies for positioning. The present multidisciplinary and integrated approach, which holistically joins the bioengineering and clinical perspectives, is unique to this work and has not been taken before. Close collaboration between bioengineers and clinicians, such as demonstrated here, is required to revisit the design of operating tables, support surfaces for surgery, surgical instruments for patient stabilisation, and for surgical access. Each type of equipment and its combined use should be evaluated and improved where needed with regard to the two major threats to tissue health in the operative setting: pressure ulcers and neural damage.
© 2020 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  neural damage; pressure injury; pressure ulcer; surgery

Year:  2020        PMID: 32496025      PMCID: PMC7948884          DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13408

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


  91 in total

1.  The Braden Scale cannot be used alone for assessing pressure ulcer risk in surgical patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei He; Peng Liu; Hong-Lin Chen
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.629

2.  Comparing visual and objective skin assessment with pressure injury risk.

Authors:  Caroline J Borzdynski; William McGuiness; Charne Miller
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  The development of a pressure ulcer risk-assessment scale for perioperative patients.

Authors:  Cassendra A Munro
Journal:  AORN J       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 0.676

4.  High body mass index is a strong predictor of intraoperative acquired pressure injury in spinal surgery patients when prophylactic film dressings are applied: A retrospective analysis prior to the BOSS Trial.

Authors:  Mine Yoshimura; Norihiko Ohura; Nick Santamaria; Yorikatsu Watanabe; Tanetaka Akizuki; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Risk profile characteristics associated with outcomes of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a retrospective review.

Authors:  Jenny Alderden; Joanne D Whitney; Shirley M Taylor; Sunniva Zaratkiewicz
Journal:  Crit Care Nurse       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.708

6.  OR Time and Sacral Pressure Injuries in Critically Ill Surgical Patients.

Authors:  Mary Jo Grap; Christine M Schubert; Cindy L Munro; Paul A Wetzel; Ruth S Burk; Valentina Lucas; Anathea Pepperl
Journal:  AORN J       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 0.676

7.  Modelling an adult human head on a donut-shaped gel head support for pressure ulcer prevention.

Authors:  Rona Katzengold; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 3.315

8.  Tissue and cellular biomechanics during corneal wound injury and repair.

Authors:  Vijay Krishna Raghunathan; Sara M Thomasy; Peter Strøm; Bernardo Yañez-Soto; Shaun P Garland; Jasmyne Sermeno; Christopher M Reilly; Christopher J Murphy
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2017-05-27       Impact factor: 8.947

9.  The relationship of subepidermal moisture and early stage pressure injury by visual skin assessment.

Authors:  Chul-Gyu Kim; Seungmi Park; Ji Woon Ko; Sungho Jo
Journal:  J Tissue Viability       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 2.932

10.  The incidence of pressure ulcers in surgical patients: a sample hospital in Turkey.

Authors:  Mevlüde Karadag; Necla Gümüskaya
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.036

View more
  4 in total

1.  Critical biomechanical and clinical insights concerning tissue protection when positioning patients in the operating room: A scoping review.

Authors:  Amit Gefen; Sue Creehan; Joyce Black
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Protecting prone positioned patients from facial pressure ulcers using prophylactic dressings: A timely biomechanical analysis in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Lea Peko; Michelle Barakat-Johnson; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 3.  Role of microRNAs in Pressure Ulcer Immune Response, Pathogenesis, and Treatment.

Authors:  Stephen M Niemiec; Amanda E Louiselle; Kenneth W Liechty; Carlos Zgheib
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 4.  Skin damage prevention in the prone ventilated critically ill patient: A comprehensive review and gap analysis (PRONEtect study).

Authors:  Anika Fourie; Maarit Ahtiala; Joyce Black; Heidi Hevia; Fiona Coyer; Amit Gefen; Kim LeBlanc; Steven Smet; Kathleen Vollman; Yolanda Walsh; Dimitri Beeckman
Journal:  J Tissue Viability       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 2.932

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.