Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deep tissue injury ( DTI) can be difficult to diagnose because many other skin and wound problems can appear as purple skin or rapidly appearing eschar. The diagnosis of DTI begins with a thorough history to account for times of exposure to pressure, such as 'time down' at the scene or time during which the patient was flat and could not respond. Patients with light skin tones present with classic skin discolouration of purple or maroon tissue, a defined border around the area of injury, and often surrounding erythema is evident. Persistent erythema and hyperpigmentation, rather than blanching, should be used to determine pressure injury in dark skin tone patients. Differential diagnosis includes stage 2 pressure ulcers, incontinence-associated dermatitis, skin tears, bruising, haematoma, venous engorgement, arterial insufficiency, necrotising fasciitis and terminal skin ulcers. Many skin problems can also have a purple hue or rapidly developing eschar, and a working knowledge of dermatology is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The formulation of recommendations on the use of wound dressings in pressure ulcer prevention was undertaken by a group of experts in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment from Australia, Portugal, UK and USA. After review of literature, they concluded that there is adequate evidence to recommend the use of five-layer silicone bordered dressings (Mepilex Border Sacrum® and 3 layer Mepilex Heel® dressings by M¨olnlycke Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden) for pressure ulcer prevention in the sacrum, buttocks and heels in high-risk patients, those in Emergency Department (ED), intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR). Literature on which this recommendation is based includes one prospective randomised control trial, three cohort studies and two case series. Recommendations for dressing use in patients at high risk for pressure injury and shear injury were also provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent clinical research has generated interest in the use of sacral wound dressings as preventive devices for patients at risk of ulceration. This study was conducted to identify the modes of action through which dressings can add to pressure ulcer prevention, for example, shear and friction force redistribution and pressure distribution. Bench testing was performed using nine commercially available dressings. The use of dressings can reduce the amplitude of shear stress and friction reaching the skin of patients at risk. They can also effectively redirect these forces to wider areas which minimises the mechanical loads upon skeletal prominences. Dressings can redistribute pressure based upon their effective Poisson ratio and larger deflection areas, providing greater load redistribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although this article is a stand-alone article, it sets the scene for later articles in this issue. Pressure ulcers are considered to be a largely preventable problem, and yet despite extensive training and the expenditure of a large amount of resources, they persist. This article reviews the current understanding of pressure ulcer aetiology: pressure, shear and microclimate. Individual risk factors for pressure ulceration also need to be understood in order to determine the level of risk of an individual. Such an assessment is essential to determine appropriate prevention strategies. The main prevention strategies in terms of reducing pressure and shear and managing microclimate are studied in this article. The problem of pressure ulceration related to medical devices is also considered as most of the standard prevention strategies are not effective in preventing this type of damage. Finally, the possibility of using dressings as an additional preventive strategy is raised along with the question: is there enough evidence to support their use? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical device related pressure ulcers ( MDR PUs) are defined as pressure injuries associated with the use of devices applied for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes wherein the PU that develops has the same configuration as the device. Many institutions have reduced the incidence of traditional PUs (sacral, buttock and heel) and therefore the significance of MDR PU has become more apparent. The highest risk of MDR PU has been reported to be patients with impaired sensory perception, such as neuropathy, and an impaired ability for the patient to communicate discomfort, for example, oral intubation, language barriers, unconsciousness or non-verbal state. Patients in critical care units typify the high-risk patient and they often require more devices for monitoring and therapeutic purposes. An expert panel met to review the evidence on the prevention of MDR PUs and arrived at these conclusions: (i) consider applying dressings that demonstrate pressure redistribution and absorb moisture from body areas in contact with medical devices, tubing and fixators, (ii) in addition to dressings applied beneath medical devices, continue to lift and/or move the medical device to examine the skin beneath it and reposition for pressure relief and (iii) when simple repositioning does not relieve pressure, it is important not to create more pressure by placing dressings beneath tight devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review considers the evidence supporting the use of prophylactic dressings for the prevention of pressure ulcer. Electronic database searches were conducted on 25 July 2013. The searches found 3026 titles and after removal of duplicate records 2819 titles were scanned against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 2777 were excluded based on their title and abstract primarily because they discussed pressure ulcer healing, the prevention and treatment of other chronic and acute wounds or where the intervention was not a prophylactic dressing (e.g. underpads, heel protectors and cushions). Finally, the full text of 42 papers were retrieved. When these 42 papers were reviewed, 21 were excluded and 21 were included in the review. The single high-quality randomised controlled trial ( RCT) and the growing number of cohort, weak RCT and case series all suggest that the introduction of a dressing as part of pressure ulcer prevention may help reduce pressure ulcer incidence associated with medical devices especially in immobile intensive care unit patients. There is no firm clinical evidence at this time to suggest that one dressing type is more effective than other dressings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most pressure ulcers occur over bony prominences such as heels and the sacrum. However, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel recognises that pressure ulcers can also occur on any tissue under pressure and thereby can develop beneath medical devices. This article reports on results from a secondary analysis of existing data collected by The Nebraska Medical Center on pressure ulcer quality improvement initiatives and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent of the problem and identify risk factors for medical device related (MDR) pressure ulcer development in hospitalised patients. A subset of data collected during eight quarterly pressure ulcer incidence and prevalence studies ( N = 2178) was created and analysed. The overall rate of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers was 5·4% (113 of 2079). The proportion of patients with hospital-acquired ulcers related to medical devices was 34·5% (39 of 113). Findings indicate that if a patient had a medical device, they were 2·4 times more likely to develop a pressure ulcer of any kind. Numerous risk factors for pressure ulcer development were identified; however, none differentiated between those with MDR and traditional pressure ulcers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data are increasingly being used as indicators of quality of care and the efficacy of pressure ulcer prevention protocols. In some health care systems, the occurrence of pressure ulcers is also being linked to reimbursement. The wider use of these epidemiological analyses necessitates that all those involved in pressure ulcer care and prevention have a clear understanding of the definitions and implications of prevalence and incidence rates. In addition, an appreciation of the potential difficulties in conducting prevalence and incidence studies and the possible explanations for differences between studies are important. An international group of experts has worked to produce a consensus document that aims to delineate and discuss the important issues involved, and to provide guidance on approaches to conducting and interpreting pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence studies. The group's main findings are summarised in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]