Search

Background: Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Beds, overlays or mattresses are widely used with the aim of treating pressure ulcers., Objectives: To assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on pressure ulcer healing in people with pressure ulcers of any stage, in any setting., Search Methods: In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to pressure-redistributing beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for treating pressure ulcers., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology., Main Results: We included 13 studies (972 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 72 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 64.0 to 86.5 years (median: 82.7 years) and all studies recruited people with existing pressure ulcers (the baseline ulcer area size ranging from 4.2 to 18.6 cm 2 ,median 6.6 cm 2 ). Participants were recruited from acute care settings (six studies) and community and long-term care settings (seven studies). Of the 13 studies, three (224 participants) involved surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. Additionally, six (46.2%) of the 13 studies presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. We synthesised data for four comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and a comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces. We summarise key findings for these four comparisons below. (1) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces: we are uncertain if there is a difference between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants whose pressure ulcers completely healed (two studies with 132 participants; the reported risk ratio (RR) in one study was 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 3.58). There is also uncertainty for the outcomes of patient comfort (one study with 83 participants) and adverse events (one study with 49 participants). These outcomes have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (2) Reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportion of participants with completely healed pressure ulcers between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). When time to complete pressure ulcer healing is considered using a hazard ratio, data from one small study (84 participants) suggests a greater hazard for complete ulcer healing on reactive air surfaces (hazard ratio 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). These results are sensitive to the choice of outcome measure so should be interpreted as uncertain. We are also uncertain whether there is any difference between these surfaces in patient comfort responses (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in adverse events (2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence that reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use (1 study, 87 participants). Included studies did not report health-related quality of life. (3) Reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between reactive water surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 1 study, 101 participants) and in adverse events (1 study, 120 participants). All these have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, patient comfort, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (4) Comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between Nimbus and Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers, in patient comfort responses and in adverse events: each of these outcomes had four studies (256 participants) but very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness., Authors' Conclusions: We are uncertain about the relative effects of most different pressure-redistributing surfaces for pressure ulcer healing (types directly compared are alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and Nimbus versus Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces). There is also uncertainty regarding the effects of these different surfaces on the outcomes of comfort and adverse events. However, people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have pressure ulcers completely healed than those using foam surfaces over 37.5 days' follow-up, and reactive air surfaces may cost more for each ulcer-free day than foam surfaces. Future research in this area could consider the evaluation of alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces as a high priority. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Pressure ulcers are treated by reducing pressure on the areas of damaged skin. Special support surfaces (including beds, mattresses and cushions) designed to redistribute pressure, are widely used as treatments. The relative effects of different support surfaces are unclear. This is an update of an existing review., Objectives: To assess the effects of pressure-relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure ulcers., Search Methods: In September 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting., Selection Criteria: We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), that assessed the effects of support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers, in any participant group or setting., Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction, assessment of 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments were performed independently by two review authors. Trials with similar participants, comparisons and outcomes were considered for meta-analysis. Where meta-analysis was inappropriate, we reported the results of the trials narratively. Where possible, we planned to report data as either risk ratio or mean difference as appropriate., Main Results: For this update we identified one new trial of support surfaces for pressure ulcer treatment, bringing the total to 19 trials involving 3241 participants. Most trials were small, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 1971, and were generally at high or unclear risk of bias., Primary Outcome: healing of existing pressure ulcersLow-tech constant pressure support surfacesIt is uncertain whether profiling beds increase the proportion of pressure ulcer which heal compared with standard hospital beds as the evidence is of very low certainty: (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.28 to 12.24), downgraded for serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness (1 study; 70 participants).There is currently no clear difference in ulcer healing between water-filled support surfaces and foam replacement mattresses: (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.37); low-certainty evidence downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (1 study; 120 participants).Further analysis could not be performed for polyester overlays versus gel overlays (1 study; 72 participants), non-powered mattresses versus low-air-loss mattresses (1 study; 20 participants) or standard hospital mattresses with sheepskin overlays versus standard hospital mattresses (1 study; 36 participants).High-tech pressure support surfacesIt is currently unclear whether high-tech pressure support surfaces (such as low-air-loss beds, air suspension beds, and alternating pressure surfaces) improve the healing of pressure ulcers (14 studies; 2923 participants) or which intervention may be more effective. The certainty of the evidence is generally low, downgraded mostly for risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision.Secondary outcomesNo analyses were undertaken with respect to secondary outcomes including participant comfort and surface reliability and acceptability as reporting of these within the included trials was very limited.Overall, the evidence is of low to very low certainty and was primarily downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision with some indirectness., Authors' Conclusions: Based on the current evidence, it is unclear whether any particular type of low- or high-tech support surface is more effective at healing pressure ulcers than standard support surfaces.

Objective: Changes in technology have resulted in a lack of clarity regarding the comparative effectiveness between active and reactive support surfaces in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers (PUs). The purpose of this literature review was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of active and reactive mattresses for prevention and treatment of PUs., Method: A literature search was completed using CINAHL, Medline Plus, Scopus, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases, as well as reference lists. A temporal limiter was placed excluding studies published before 2000 due to changes in care standards and support surface technology., Results: Of the 33 articles included, nine were systematic/literature reviews and 24 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was a consensus that pressure mattresses are an effective prevention and treatment strategy, however comparisons of the two types were often inconclusive or conflicting. Studies were conducted in acute, sub-acute or residential facilities, with no studies in a domiciliary setting. The majority of studies were rated as moderate quality with significant methodological limitations., Conclusion: Further research is needed to investigate the use of support surfaces in a domiciliary setting with an appropriate methodology aimed at minimising the limitations described in the existing literature.

Background: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of two types of pressure relieving mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. The primary endpoint is the time to development of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer. The current 'gold standard' for the identification of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer is expert clinical assessment. Due to the appearance of the bed, it is not possible to achieve blinding of the endpoint. This therefore poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including whether patients would agree to photographs; the burden of data collection; the quality of photographs; the completeness of data; and how the use of photographs compares with the current 'gold standard'. This validation sub-study aims to assess and quantify potential bias in the reporting of the trial endpoint., Methods/design: Patients will be specifically asked to consent to photographs being taken of their skin sites. Photographs will be taken at first observation or when patients develop a new Category ≥2 pressure ulcer (to assess over-reporting). A 10% random sample of patients will be identified for additional photographs of two skin sites (one torso and one limb) with and without a pressure ulcer (if present) by an independent assessor (to assess the potential for under-reporting). Staff will be trained to take photographs using a standardised camera and photographic technique. A 'grey scale' will be included in the photo to correct white balance. Photographs will be securely transferred for central review. Photographs will have white balance corrected, and the computer monitor will be calibrated prior to review. Analysis will include assessment of under- and over-reporting, acceptability of photography to patients, secure transfer of data, quality of and confidence in blinded photograph review and sensitivity analysis using photograph assessment of primary outcome., Discussion: This study will use photographs to contribute to the primary outcome of the trial. It will inform our understanding of the acceptability of photography for prevention trials and the possibility of other uses of photographic data in clinical work and research., Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013.

Background: Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual's functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers., Methods/design: PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 'high-risk' patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee., Discussion: The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design., Trial Registration: ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013. Protocol version: 5.0, dated 25 September 2015 Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.

Pressure ulcer prevention and management remain a challenge across all health-care settings, and the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers in nursing homes and residential homes continues to remain unknown. The use of suitable support surfaces has been found to be beneficial in the prevention and management of pressure ulcers. Carrying out a holistic assessment of the patient and recording the patient's at-risk score would help the clinician to determine the most suitable pressure-relieving surface for the patient. The clinician's clinical experience and judgment are also important. The Domus Auto (by APEX) mattress system and Dynamic Seat Cushion (by APEX) are effective dynamic, support surfaces in the prevention and management of pressure ulceration. They meet the recommendations by both national and international guidelines; they also partly fulfil the SSKIN bundle. From a four-week evaluation carried out in a nursing home, it has been demonstrated that, together with regular assessments and repositioning of the patients, these devices are useful tools in preventing patients' risk of tissue damage and improving the patients' quality of life.

Background: 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., Objectives: 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., Search Methods: 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)., Selection Criteria: 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 Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted by one review author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis., Main Results: 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). , Authors' Conclusions: 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.

Purpose: The evolution of suspected deep tissue injuries from an initial purple bruise to a significant stage III or IV pressure ulcer may be rapid, even with optimal treatment. This case series describes our experience with air-fluidized therapy (AFT) placed upon discovery of suspected deep tissue injury (sDTI) in an acute care setting., Cases: Five patients with 10 sDTIs were placed on AFT within 12 hours of sDTI diagnosis and evaluated for an average of 9 days. Patients were included in the series if they met the height and weight range of the bed and presented with, or developed an sDTI. Standard wound care included the use of an ointment containing trypsin, Balsam of Peru, and castor oil (Vasolex; Stratus Pharmaceuticals Inc, Miami, Florida) applied directly to both intact skin and open areas comprising the sDTI. Patients were repositioned per standard hospital care. Although we were unable to prevent skin breakdown in every case, findings suggest that interventions resulted in a reduction in the magnitude of tissue loss, including prevention of stage III to IV pressure ulceration in all 5 patients. The cost of a 9-day length of stay on the AFT bed is estimated at less than $700 per patient, which is far less than the reported cost to treat a stage III/IV wound ($10,845 US per patient in 2009 dollars)., Conclusion: Our experience described in these cases suggests that the use of AFT may be clinical and cost-effective for prevention of progression of sDTI in critically ill patients. Additional research in this area should be encouraged.

Pressure ulcer prevention and treatment remains a challenge for interprofessional teams in all health care sectors. Evidencebased pressure ulcer guidelines can be simplified with a bedside enabler utilizing the wound bed preparation paradigm. Key steps involve treatment of the cause, addressing patient-centered concerns, and administering local wound care (debridement, infection/ inflammation control, and moisture balance before considering advanced therapies with the edge effect). Optimal outcomes are achievable with a multi-disciplinary approach that supports patients and their circle of care, which is central to every evaluation and course of treatment decisions.

Background: Pressure ulcers are treated by reducing pressure on the areas of damaged skin. Special support surfaces (including beds, mattresses and cushions) designed to redistribute pressure, are widely used as treatments. The relative effects of different support surfaces are unclear., Objectives: To assess the effects of pressure-relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure ulcers., Search Methods: We searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 July 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (2007 to July Week 1 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 14, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (2007 to 2011 Week 27); EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 14 July 2011). The reference sections of included studies were also searched., Selection Criteria: We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), that assessed the effects of support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting, that reported an objective measure of wound healing., Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by two review authors. Trials with similar patients, comparisons and outcomes were considered for pooled analysis. Where pooling was inappropriate the results of the trials were reported narratively. Where possible, the risk ratio or mean difference was calculated for the results of individual studies., Main Results: We identified 18 trials of support surfaces for pressure ulcer treatment, involving 1309 participants with samples sizes that ranged from 14 to 160. Of three trials comparing air-fluidized devices with conventional therapy, two reported significant reductions in pressure ulcer size associated with air-fluidized devices. Due to lack of reported variance data we could not replicate the analyses. In relation to three of the trials that reported significant reductions in pressure ulcer size favouring low air loss devices compared with foam alternatives, we found no significant differences. A small trial found that sheepskin placed under the legs significantly reduced redness and similarly a small subgroup analysis favoured a profiling bed compared with a standard bed in terms of the healing of existing grade 1 pressure ulcers. Poor reporting, clinical heterogeneity, lack of variance data and methodological limitations in the eligible trials meant that no pooled comparisons were undertaken., Authors' Conclusions: There is no conclusive evidence about the superiority of any support surface for the treatment of existing pressure ulcers. Methodological issues included variations in outcomes measured, sample sizes and comparison groups. Many studies had small sample sizes and often there was inadequate description of the intervention, standard care and co-interventions. Individual study results were often inadequately reported, with failure to report variance data common, thus hindering the calculation of mean differences. Some studies did not report P values when reporting on differences in outcomes. In addition, the age of some trials (some being 20 years old), means that other technologies may have superseded those investigated.Further and rigorous studies are required to address these concerns and to improve the evidence base before firm conclusions can be drawn about the most effective support surfaces to treat pressure ulcers.

Background: 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., Objectives: 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., Search Strategy: 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., Selection Criteria: 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 Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted by one author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar studies were pooled for meta-analysis., Main Results: 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). , Authors' Conclusions: 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.

Since the late 1960s, air-fluidized therapy (AFT) has been effectively used to treat patients with pressure ulcers, burns, and many other clinical problems. Much of the demonstrated efficacy is believed to be associated with the unique fluid environment provided by AFT that is fundamentally different from the support provided by surfaces made up of conventional solid materials. Fluid support maximizes the envelopment of the body while significantly reducing shear, friction, and pressure, and mechanical stress applied to the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Additionally, the variable temperature airflow allows the microclimate to be controlled according to needs for both therapy and patient comfort. Clinical benefits of AFT include faster and more cost-effective healing of pressure ulcers, a decreased rate of hospitalizations and emergency room visits for long-term care pressure ulcer patients, decreased mortality of patients with extensive burns and inhalation injury and rapid healing and increased comfort in burn patients. The fluid support also results in a substantial decrease in the amount of caregiver effort required for repositioning patients and increased patient comfort in patients with multiple trauma and external fixation devices or deformities that require a conforming bed, and patients with cancer and bony metastasis. This article seeks to evaluate the physical differences in AFT over other mattress types and to review the published literature for this therapy modality.

Pressure ulcers are associated with a significant economic burden that, in many cases, is recognised as being avoidable. The effectiveness of pressure relieving surfaces is well documented and acknowledged in clinical guidelines on the prevention and management of pressure ulcers. Whilst pressure relieving surfaces are more expensive than traditional hospital mattresses, judicious use, targeted to patients most at risk, can help to reduce the incidence and costs of pressure ulcers in hospital settings. This review paper includes a summary of pivotal clinical evidence on pressure relieving surfaces as well as a suggested approach for modelling their financial impact on hospital budgets. Simple financial modelling suggests that pressure relieving surfaces could lead to financial savings for a hospital when used appropriately.

Background: 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., Objectives: 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?, Search Strategy: 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., Selection Criteria: 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., Data Collection and Analysis: 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., Main Results: 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., Authors' Conclusions: 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.

The NICE pressure ulcer guidelines the management of pressure ulcers in primary and secondary care (2005) recommend 'as a minimum provision a high specification foam mattress'. With this statement NICE infers that if quality of care is to be offered, an alternating pressure mattress should be used. In the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, a new approach to pressure ulcer management has been pioneered, with the introduction of fluid-filled mattresses instead of alternating pressure technology. The Trust has moved to a 98.4% static approach, in effect questioning the NICE guidelines and its recommendations on the selection of appropriate pressure relieving surfaces. Quarterly studies demonstrate a reduction in the prevalence of pressure ulcers as well as significant savings being made, despite an initial financial outlay. The radical move from alternating pressure technology to fluid-filled static technology has been a success: will the same apply to primary care?

Summary Bedsores (UPPs) should be viewed as a multifaceted problem, but the direct relationship which exists between these lesions and the pressure which is exercised between the surface one rests on and a zone having a prominent bone bears significant weight. Therefore, the following are some basic measures which can prevent bedsores: mobility posture changes, local protection and the use of special surfaces for the management of pressure.

Pressure sores are a current problem in hospitals and care of the elderly, leading to protracted hospital stays and a high care burden. The trauma for the patients is severe, and the cost of pressure sore prevention and treatment, is considerable. Antidecubitus mattresses are used for prevention and in treatment, but they also contribute to the cost of treating pressure sores. The problem highlighted in the review is that the mattresses' effectiveness in preventing and treating pressure sores has not been sufficiently evaluated. When antidecubitus mattresses are evaluated, it is often only with regard to aspects of the interface pressure and the mattresses' ability to redistribute the pressure. The review points out the important observation that, to be able to evaluate the efficacy of the antidecubitus mattress, the mattress's effect on tissue viability needs to be studied. The parameters that ought to be considered when evaluating a support surface are: interface pressure, pressure and blood flow distribution, temperature and humidity in the skin-support surface interface. The authors propose that the effect on tissue viability of external loading can be assessed by simultaneous measurement of the interface pressure and tissue perfusion.

Objectives: The cost-effectiveness of alternating pressure-relieving devices, mattress replacements, and mattress overlays compared with a standard hospital (high-specification foam mattress) for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers in hospital patients in the United Kingdom was investigated., Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate different strategies to prevent or treat pressure ulcers. Three scenarios were evaluated: the prevention of pressure ulcers, the treatment of superficial ulcers, and the treatment of severe ulcers. Epidemiological and effectiveness data were obtained from the clinical literature. Expert opinion using a rating scale technique was used to obtain quality of life data. Costs of the devices were obtained from manufacturers, whereas costs of treatment were obtained from the literature. Uncertainty was explored through probabilistic sensitivity analysis., Results: Using 30,000 pounds sterling/QALY (quality-adjusted life year) as the decision-maker's cut off point (the current UK standard), in scenario 1 (prevention), the cost-effective strategy was the mattress overlay at 1, 4, and 12 weeks. In scenarios 2 and 3, the cost-effective strategy was the mattress replacement at 1, 4, and 12 weeks. Standard care was a dominated intervention in all scenarios for values of the decision-maker's ceiling ratio ranging from 5,000 pounds sterling to 100,000 pounds sterling/QALY. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results reflected the high uncertainty surrounding the choice of devices., Conclusions: Current information suggests that alternating pressure mattress overlays may be cost-effective for the prevention of pressure ulcers, whereas alternating pressure mattress replacements appears to be cost-effective for the treatment of superficial and severe pressure ulcers.

To provide empirical evidence comparing pressure ulcer healing rates between different support surfaces, data were analyzed from eligible residents with pressure ulcers (N = 664) enrolled in the National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study, a retrospective pressure ulcer prevention and treatment study. Support surfaces were categorized as: Group 1 (static overlays and replacement mattresses), Group 2 (low-air-loss beds, alternating pressure, and powered/non-powered overlays/mattresses), and Group 3 (air-fluidized beds). Calculation of healing rates, using the largest ulcer from each resident, found mean healing rates greatest for air-fluidized therapy (Group 3) (mean = 5.2 cm(2)/week) versus Group 1 (mean =1.5 cm(2)/week) and Group 2 (mean = 1.8 cm(2)/week) surfaces (P = 0.007). Healing rates also were assessed using 7- to 10-day "episodes"; each ulcer generated separate episode(s) that included all ulcers when residents had multiple ulcers. Mean healing rates were significantly greater for Stage III/IV ulcers on Group 3 surfaces (mean = 3.1 cm(2)/week) versus Group 1 (mean = 0.6 cm(2)/week) and Group 2 (mean = 0.7 cm(2)/week) surfaces (Group 2 versus Group 3: P = 0.0211). This finding persisted for ulcers with comparable initial baseline areas (20 cm(2) to 75 cm(2)) on Group 2 and Group 3 surfaces; healing improved on Group 3 surfaces (+2.3 cm(2)/week) versus Group 2 surfaces (-2.1 cm(2)/week, P = 0.0399). Residents on Group 3 (6 out of 82; 7.3%) and Group 1 (47 out of 461; 10.2%) surfaces had fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits than those on Group 2 surfaces (23 out of 121; 19.0%, P = 0.01) despite significantly greater illness in residents on Group 2 and 3 versus Group 1 surfaces (P is less than 0.0001). Despite limitations inherent in retrospective studies, ulcers on Group 3 surfaces versus Groups 1 and Group 2 surfaces had statistically significant faster healing rates (particularly for Stage III/IV ulcers) with significantly fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits (Group 3 versus Group 2), despite significantly more illness in residents on Group 2 or Group 3 versus Group 1 surfaces. Episode analyses -- providing greater power, uniform treatment duration, and comparable baseline sizes -- confirmed these findings. Air-fluidized support surfaces represent great healing potential that justifies further exploration.

Continuous lateral rotation therapy utilizes mattresses and beds that move the patient in a regular pattern around a longitudinal axis. Although these devices have been used for several decades for other medical purposes, literature is scant regarding their role in the treatment of skin breakdown in the bedridden, difficult-to-reposition patient. A descriptive study was undertaken to ascertain the rate of wound healing and number of weeks to achieve wound closure when continuous lateral rotation therapy was employed in patients with partial-thickness (n=10) and full-thickness (n=20) ulcers on the trunk or pelvis. Patients receiving the services of Advanced Therapy Surfaces in home or long-term care between March 15, 2002 and April 1, 2003 were enrolled. Partial-thickness wounds healed at an average rate of 16.68% per week, with an average time for continuous lateral rotation therapy of 9.25 weeks. Full-thickness wounds healed at an average rate of 14.38% per week (time to healing 11.25 weeks). No additional areas of skin breakdown were observed. These encouraging results suggest that additional research is warranted.

Background: 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., Objectives: This systematic review seeks to answer the following questions: to what extent do pressure-relieving cushions, beds, mattress overlays and mattress replacements reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces? how effective are different pressure-relieving surfaces in preventing pressure ulcers, compared to one another?, Search Strategy: The Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group (compiled from regular searches of many electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE plus handsearching of specialist journals and conference proceedings) was searched up to January 2004, Issue 3, 2004 of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was also searched. The reference sections of included studies were searched for further trials., Selection Criteria: 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. 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., Data Collection and Analysis: 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., Main Results: 41 RCTs were included in the review. 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, and of the different alternating pressure devices for pressure ulcer prevention are unclear.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table have been shown to reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although one study indicated that an overlay resulted in adverse skin changes. One trial 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 an operating theatre overlay are harmful., Reviewers' Conclusions: In people at high risk of pressure ulcer development, consideration should be given to the use of higher specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-tech constant low pressure and alternating pressure for prevention are unclear. Organisations might consider the use of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre, as this is associated with a reduction in post-operative incidence of pressure ulcers. Seat cushions and overlays designed for use in Accident & Emergency settings have not been adequately evaluated.

While a plethora of pressure-relieving and reducing equipment is available to nurses for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers, very little of it is specifically designed or appropriate for paediatric patients. The limited choice that does exist concentrates on neonates or babies, which is problematic for the nurse dealing with the older child. Children may be at increased risk of developing pressure injury as a result of the forces of friction, shearing and pressure that results from being nursed on a support system designed for the adult patient. This gap in service provision may cause dilemmas for the nurse who has a duty to 'cause no harm' (UKCC, 1992) in his/her attempt to protect and treat a child. This article introduces a new product available from Karomed (a division of the Verna Group) that has been specifically designed with the child in mind.

Foam alternatives to the standard hospital foam mattress can reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk. The relative merits of AP and CLP devices and of the different AP devices for pressure ulcer prevention are unclear. There is some evidence from one study to suggest that LAL beds may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard intensive care beds. There is insufficient evidence to make conclusions on the value of various CLP devices and sheepskins as pressure ulcer prevention strategies, although Australian Medical Sheepskin was an effective preventive strategy in a recent study. There is evidence from two trials that air-fluidized therapy may improve pressure ulcer healing rates. There is insufficient evidence to make conclusions on the value of other beds and mattresses as pressure ulcer treatments. There is insufficient evidence to recommend any particular wound dressing or debridement technique. Research about pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is generally conducted on a small scale and is of poor quality; few economic evaluations have been undertaken of pressure area care strategies. Only when a clinically relevant research agenda has been developed and appropriate research methods have been used in sufficiently large studies can evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention and treatment be a possibility. Until then, nurses and other health care professionals can only rely on what little research evidence exists together with their professional judgment to make decisions in this field.

Pressure-relieving equipment plays a key role in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Every year an increasing amount of equipment is launched on to the market. The efficacy of this equipment is traditionally qualified with interface pressure and case studies, but rarely with randomized controlled trials. With the advent of The New NHS: Modern, Dependable (Department of Health (DoH), 1997) and Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment and Prevention (National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2001), a clinical governance system has started to be put into place and hopefully more evidence will be produced by the manufacturers and the NHS. With some 200 different types of mattresses on the market, emphasis needs to be placed on good quality randomized clinical trials to establish effectiveness of what can be costly equipment. This article gives an overview of how, historically, pressure-relieving mattresses were marketed on case studies and interface measurement. Recently, randomized controlled clinical trials are being used to demonstrate the efficacy of the mattress and reduction in the incidence of pressure ulcers. Seating is also an important aspect in continuing 24-hours pressure area prevention and treatment. Patient posture in a chair needs to be fully understood by the practitioner and key strategies are made in this article. Little research into seating has been undertaken and is urgently required.

The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers is a major concern for hospital nursing staff. Selection of the appropriate equipment for pressure area care can prove difficult, as a great many different systems are available. Tempur-Med provides a simple and cost-effective solution to this problem with a range of products ensuring continuity of care in all areas of the hospital.

"Least costly but most effective" has never been more important to healthcare delivery than in the current healthcare environment of changing reimbursement systems. In wound care, the high costs associated with renting advanced support surfaces may be an area where expenses can be decreased if similar outcomes can be attained by using more affordable mattresses. This article compares the healing rates and eventual outcomes of wounds among two groups of patients randomly assigned to one of two support surfaces. A commonly used low-air-loss mattress was compared with the study mattress, an advanced, non-powered, air and foam surface. Subjects were patients admitted to either of two long-term healthcare settings for the treatment of wounds. The resulting two groups of 10 patients each were evenly matched for average age and percentage of patients who were nutritionally deficient as indicated by albumin or pre-albumin levels. The presence of gastrointestinal tubes and ventilator dependency also was recorded. Consistent wound care protocols were used on both groups, including turning schedules, nutrition, topical medication, and dressings. The study period covered a maximum of 8 weeks; interest was centered on the rate of wound healing and progress toward a goal rather than the length of time to completely close a wound. After 8 weeks, or upon discharge from the study pressure ulcers in the study mattress group closed at an average rate per week of 9.0% +/- 4.8 versus 5.0% +/- 3.7 in the low-air-loss mattress group. This study indicates that the study mattress can provide benefits to the wound healing process similar to or better than low-air-loss mattresses at a substantially reduced cost.

The authors have previously reported the preliminary results of a randomized-controlled trial comparing the relative efficacy of two pressure-relieving systems: Huntleigh Nimbus 3 and Aura Cushion, and Pegasus Cairwave Therapy System and ProActive Seating Cushion (Russell et al, 2000). Although both the mattresses and cushions were effective treatments for pressure ulcers, the Huntleigh equipment was demonstrated to be statistically more effective for heel ulcers, but no differences were demonstrated for sacral ulcers. This article gives a more detailed analysis of the 141 patients assessed using computerized-image analysis of the digital images of sacral ulcers captured during the trial and specifically discusses the healing rates and other patient characteristics. Ninety-eight per cent of ulcers examined were deemed superficial (Torrance grade 2a, 2b, 3). Precision of image analysis assessed by within- and between-batch coefficients of variation was excellent: calibration CV 0.93-1.84%; area CV 4.61-5.72%. The healing rates on the two mattresses were not shown to be statistically different from each other.

To ascertain the ability of combining data to examine the effectiveness of a lateral support surface, data from independent studies were analyzed. Patients placed on the surface (N = 75) were elderly (mean age 70.2 years), had multiple comorbities, and an average Braden score of 12.66. Of these patients, 8.4% had a history of preexisting pressure ulcers and their average albumin was 3.56. Seventeen patients without wounds and believed to be "at risk" (average Braden score = 10.75) were treated prophylactically for an average of 63.3 days. Records of 45 wounds (32 subjects) were sufficiently complete to be included in the wound healing rate analysis. No ulcers occurred in the preventive group. No impact was associated with combining the data across the setting. A slight impact was anticipated when combining the data by setting and wound stage. Wounds on 28 of the subjects healed or were reduced in size, three remained unchanged, and one worsened. Overall, wound size reduced by an average of 68.85% over 84.69 days on the mattress, or 25.5% per week (n = 45, P = 0.0004). Stage I pressure ulcers reduced 46% per week (n = 6, P = 0.022), Stage II ulcers at 33% per week (n = 22, P = 0.05), Stage III ulcers at 6.97% per week (n = 13, P = 0.004), and Stage IV at 3.24% per week (n = 4, P = 0.058). The results of this retrospective review indicate that data from various sites can be combined and that the support surface may be an effective intervention modality. However, wound healing is a complex process, and support surfaces are only one of many interventions needed to facilitate healing. Future research using valid wound-healing instruments is needed.

Limited research has been done to determine the effectiveness of the multitude of pressure reduction devices currently available for patient care. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relative effectiveness of a dynamic low-air-loss (LAL) mattress and a static fluid mattress in reducing the risk of pressure ulcer development. The investigation consisted of two components: a comparative laboratory study and a retrospective clinical study. In the laboratory study, tissue interface pressures were measured on the two surfaces at three interface sites in a sample of six healthy adult volunteers. In the clinical study, a retrospective chart review was conducted to compare the actual incidence of pressure ulcer formation in a sample of 73 postoperative transplant patients who were placed on either the static fluid or LAL product. The instruments used were the Xsensor Pressure Mapping System (laboratory) and chart review tool (clinical). The main outcome measures included tissue interface pressures and incidence of pressure ulcer formation. The results were as follows: the laboratory study revealed significantly lower sacral pressures (t = -5.30, P = .003) on the low-air-loss mattress than on the static fluid mattress. Pressures did not differ significantly at the heel or trochanter sites. In the clinical study, the overall incidence of skin breakdown was 8.2%, with 5 occurrences (13.8%) in the LAL group and 1 occurrence (2.7%) in the static fluid group. However, this difference was not significant (Fisher's exact test = 0.107, P = .09). When considered jointly, the results of the two studies suggest that the static fluid and LAL products may be comparable in efficacy. Although the relatively small sample sizes used in the investigation limit generalizability, the results provide some initial direction for further clinical research in this area.

This study assessed the clinical effectiveness of the Nimbus 3 alternating pressure mattress replacement system (APMRS) on pressure ulcer healing and comfort in subjects > or = 65 years, with at least a Grade 2 ulcer and some mobility problems. Twelve patients in a hospital setting were randomly allocated to the Nimbus 3 or another APMRS, and 20 residents in a nursing home setting to the Nimbus 3 or an alternating pressure mattress overlay. Wound surface area (WSA) (cm2) was recorded twice weekly and comfort once weekly. In the hospital setting, there were no significant differences between groups in the reduction in WSA per day. In the nursing home setting, though subjects on Nimbus 3 had significantly more pressure ulcers at baseline, there were no significant differences between groups in the reduction in WSA per day. Nimbus 3 was statistically more comfortable than control surfaces. The study's sample size has not shown the products were different with regard to clinical effectiveness. However, it might serve as a pilot for a larger, multi-centre RCT aimed at establishing the efficacy of a pressure-relieving (PR) device on pressure ulcer healing.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of pressure relieving beds, mattresses and cushions (support surfaces) in the prevention and treatment of pressure sores., Search Strategy: Searches of 19 databases, hand searching of journals, conference proceedings, and bibliographies., Selection Criteria: 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 Collection and Analysis: 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., Prevention: 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., Treatment: 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., Reviewer's Conclusions: 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.

Objective: To determine whether low airloss hydrotherapy reduces the incidence of new skin lesions associated with incontinence in hospitalized patients and results in more rapid healing of existing pressure sores compared with standard care. To assess subjectively patient and nursing satisfaction related to using low airloss hydrotherapy beds., Design: Randomized, prospective, unblinded study., Setting: Acute and chronic hospital wards., Participants: A total of 116 newly admitted, incontinent, hospitalized patients with and without existing pressure sores., Intervention: Low airloss hydrotherapy compared with treatment on hospital beds and mattresses ordered by the patient's attending physician., Measurements: Incidence rates of new skin lesion development, e.g., pressure sores, candidiasis, and chemical irritation; improvement in existing pressure sore size, volume, and status; subjective assessment of patient and nursing satisfaction., Results: Possible hypothermia was identified in two patients during the first week of the study, and patient and nursing dissatisfaction with low airloss hydrotherapy remained high throughout the first months of the study. Therefore, two major modifications in the initial protocol were made: (1) increased patient temperature monitoring for hypothermia was initiated in Week 2 of the study and (2) increased staff resources for in-service training on bed use began in Week 18 of the study. After the latter change, 58 subjects were randomized to low airloss hydrotherapy and 58 to standard care. Subjects were old (median age > or = 80 years), and almost all were bedbound or nonambulatory. The median (range) length of follow-up for subjects in the treatment group was significantly shorter than for those in the control group (4 (1-60) days versus 6 (1-62) days, respectively, P = .017) because there were more dropouts from the treatment group (24 (36%) of 58 versus 2 (3%) of 58, P = .0001). The major reasons dropout occurred were patient or family dissatisfaction (12 (21%)), new or worsened skin lesions thought to be related to bed use (4 (7%)), and hypothermia < 97 degrees F (4 (7%)). The total cumulative incidence of new truncal skin lesions within 9 days of enrollment was greater in the treatment than in the control group (48% versus 14%, respectively, P < 0.01). Too few patients with existing pressure sores were treated for too short a period of time to assess the effect of low airloss hydrotherapy on pressure sore healing. Because only 10 patients treated on low airloss hydrotherapy beds were able to complete satisfaction surveys meaningfully, interpretation of these data is difficult. Only nine (21%) of 44 nurses subjectively reported overall satisfaction using the low airloss hydrotherapy bed., Conclusions: This study shows the value of a rigorously designed clinically based evaluation of a new product developed for older patients. The results of the study led to re-engineering of the prototype low airloss hydrotherapy bed as well as a change in marketing strategy. Studies of products targeted to the prevention and treatment of pressure sores in older patients should be undertaken before generalized marketing begins.

Decubitus is one of the most difficult management problems encountered in bedridden elderly patients. Relief of pressure over decubitus is the most important principle of the management. We developed a rolling air cushion bed which turns the patient to a 15-degree inclined lateral position with an inflating ripple mattress, a longitudinally aligned air inflatable tube. The position of the patients was changed between right and left laterals and to supine every 15 minutes automatically. Nineteen bedridden patients with decubitus used the rolling air cushion bed for 3 months and 12 bedridden patients with decubitus used a conventional bed and had their position changes every 2 hours by care givers. Severity of decubitus was divided into 4 grades and the decubitus significantly improved from 2.8 (S.E. 0.2) to 2.0 (S.E. 0.3) after 3 months in patients using the rolling air cushion bed, while in patients with conventional beds it changed from 3.0 (S.E. 0.2) to 3.2 (S.E. 0.2) (not statistically significant). We suggest that the rolling air cushion bed would be beneficial to decubitus relief in bedridden elderly and may relieve labor by care givers.

Pressure sores affect approximately 10% of the adult population and occur in various hospitals and community settings (Department of Health, 1992). It is therefore essential to adopt a logical approach when selecting the optimum piece of equipment for patients at risk of pressure sore development. Alternating-pressure mattresses have been used for many years in both hospitals and community environments to prevent and treat pressure sores. In September 1995, Pegasus Airwave Limited launched a new alternating-pressure mattress overlay, the Overture. It is designed for use with patients who have mobility problems and are at low to medium risk of developing pressure sores or have superficial tissue damage. This article describes the features of the Overture and its suitability for use in different care settings.

Pressure-relieving strategies remain the foundation for the prevention and treatment of pressure sores. Although the published literature is inadequate, rational treatment decisions can be made if they are based on an understanding of the mechanisms by which pressure relief results with a particular device or strategy. This article reviews the theoretic and practical approaches to managing tissue loads so that rational choices of the most cost-effective strategies for preventing and treating pressure sores can be made when caring for patients.

Transcutaneous oxygen tension (TCPO2) is a recognized techniques for evaluating support surfaces as a pressure ulcer prevention method. Transcutaneous oxygen tension was measured over the sacral area of 20 volunteers positioned on five different mattresses, including a standard mattress. No specific change was noted on resting values (M = 68.2 mm Hg, SD = 9.4) before each of the five protocols were begun. Mean values were 17.9 mm Hg (SD = 27.9) for a nonspecific hospital mattress, 30.15 mm Hg (SD = 29.5) for the first foam mattress, 30.25 mm Hg (SD = 28.5) for the second foam mattress, 50.5 mm Hg (SD = 23.1) for the air mattress, and 50.95 mm Hg (SD = 21.6) for the water-filled mattress. Results showed statistical differences between the standard mattress and the four mattresses tested and between the foam mattresses and the two other mattresses. There was an inverse correlation between skinfold thickness and a decreased TCPO2 in contact area. Skinfold thickness could be an indicator of pressure ulcer risk. Further studies are needed to confirm the interest of this parameter.

Background: Cost-effectiveness of low-air-loss beds for the healing of pressure ulcers was analyzed in the nursing home setting. A statistical model of pressure ulcer healing was used to estimate cost-effectiveness based on patient and ulcer characteristics., Methods: Results of a previous randomized trial (84 patients from three nursing homes in Los Angeles) were reanalyzed and combined with estimates of costs to calculate the cost-effectiveness in dollars per added day free of pressure ulcers achieved by the use of low-air-loss beds compared to conventional foam mattresses., Results: The cost-effectiveness of the low-air-loss bed was $26 per added day free of ulcers for our standard patient. Results were sensitive to low-air-loss bed lease costs and patient and wound healing characteristics. Results were less sensitive to expected mortality, daily wound care costs, and time-frame of consideration. Low-air-loss beds were more cost-effective for patients with good healing characteristics and mild ulcers., Conclusions: Findings support the expanded use of this technology for patients with mild pressure ulcers and good healing characteristics. For these patients, the cost-effectiveness of low-air-loss beds is comparable to other accepted health treatments. For patients with severe ulcers and poor healing characteristics, low-air-loss bed cost-effectiveness compares poorly with other accepted health treatments unless the lease cost can be substantially reduced, or unless life with a pressure ulcer is valued close to death.

The process of fluidisation involves blowing warm air through small solid microspheres thus creating a liquid, without wetness. The warmth provides some important properties including reducing the metabolic rate in thermal injury which has a beneficial effect on mortality, modifying catabolism after surgery, providing gradual vasodilation in shock and core temperature stability in illness. The fluidisation ensures prevention and successful treatment of pressure sores, a comfortable and less stressful environment than conventional care, a reduction in pain, ease of wound care, discourages a bacterial persistence and reduces the work of the nurse. The importance of proper fluid balance, bacteriological care and limitations of posture must be appreciated in using the bed.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of low-air-loss beds for the treatment of pressure ulcers in nursing homes., Design: Prospective, randomized, clinical trial., Setting: Three teaching nursing homes in Los Angeles, Calif., Subjects: Eighty-four nursing home residents with trunk or trochanter pressure ulcers (Shea stage > or = 2)., Interventions: Subjects were randomly assigned to use either a low-air-loss bed (n = 43) or a 10-cm corrugated foam mattress (n = 41) throughout the healing of their ulcers., Outcome Measures: Ulcers were assessed twice weekly using surface area and two observational scales (median follow-up, 37.5 days; range, 4 to 571 days)., Results: Groups were similar with respect to demographics, medical variables, wound care, and early dropouts. Results indicate more than a threefold improvement in median rate of healing for low-air-loss beds compared with foam mattresses (9.0 vs 2.5 mm2/d; P = .0002). This finding was true for deep as well as superficial ulcers (deep ulcers, 9.9 vs 0.7 mm2/d; P = .02; superficial ulcers, 9.0 vs 3.2 mm2/d; P = .004). Cox regression models revealed that the bed, ulcer depth, and fecal continence had independent effects on healing. After controlling for fecal continence, the deep and superficial subgroups using low-air-loss beds remained 2.5 times more likely to heal in a given length of time compared with those using foam mattresses (combined cure probability ratio, 2.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.34 to 5.17; P < .004)., Conclusion: Low-air-loss beds provide substantial improvement compared with foam mattresses despite other factors in pressure ulcer healing.