Sandra Guzman, Kasey Call, Marianne Russon, Susan Jellum, Jordan Fisk, Evan Call
{"title":"Pressure Distribution Properties in Wound Dressings Using Heel and Sacrum Indenters Under Clinically Relevant Loads.","authors":"Sandra Guzman, Kasey Call, Marianne Russon, Susan Jellum, Jordan Fisk, Evan Call","doi":"10.1097/ASW.0000000000000294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To understand the pressure distribution characteristics of a border and silicone version of a next-generation multilayered foam dressing (A and B) compared with three commercially available dressings (C, D, and E) using a novel pressure distribution model with clinically relevant pressures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The testing setup included a support surface analog of K45 foam covered with polyurethane fabric, a high-resolution pressure mapping system, and a silicone layer to simulate overlying tissue. The dressing was exposed to clinically relevant loads of 30 and 80 mm Hg for 60 seconds using new sacral and heel indenters. A control was conducted using the same setup without a dressing. Statistical significance was determined using a 95% CI and t test with α = .05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All dressings decreased pressure and increased contact area compared with the control (P < 0.05). Dressings A and B had lower peak pressures than dressings C and E for both indenters. Dressings D and B had the largest contact areas and lowest pressures in the heel indenters, whereas dressing E had the smallest contact area and the highest pressures for both indenters. The results also demonstrated a strong negative correlation between the average pressure and the contact area for both indenters.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using anatomically accurate indenters and clinically relevant pressures, the study demonstrated that dressings A and B significantly reduced interface pressure compared with no dressing, suggesting potential advantages for pressure redistribution in vulnerable areas. Additional clinical research in various care settings is needed to validate this study's findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":7489,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Skin & Wound Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Skin & Wound Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ASW.0000000000000294","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To understand the pressure distribution characteristics of a border and silicone version of a next-generation multilayered foam dressing (A and B) compared with three commercially available dressings (C, D, and E) using a novel pressure distribution model with clinically relevant pressures.
Methods: The testing setup included a support surface analog of K45 foam covered with polyurethane fabric, a high-resolution pressure mapping system, and a silicone layer to simulate overlying tissue. The dressing was exposed to clinically relevant loads of 30 and 80 mm Hg for 60 seconds using new sacral and heel indenters. A control was conducted using the same setup without a dressing. Statistical significance was determined using a 95% CI and t test with α = .05.
Results: All dressings decreased pressure and increased contact area compared with the control (P < 0.05). Dressings A and B had lower peak pressures than dressings C and E for both indenters. Dressings D and B had the largest contact areas and lowest pressures in the heel indenters, whereas dressing E had the smallest contact area and the highest pressures for both indenters. The results also demonstrated a strong negative correlation between the average pressure and the contact area for both indenters.
Conclusions: Using anatomically accurate indenters and clinically relevant pressures, the study demonstrated that dressings A and B significantly reduced interface pressure compared with no dressing, suggesting potential advantages for pressure redistribution in vulnerable areas. Additional clinical research in various care settings is needed to validate this study's findings.
目的利用一种新型压力分布模型,将下一代多层泡沫敷料(A 和 B)与三种市售敷料(C、D 和 E)的压力分布特性进行比较,以了解两者的压力分布特性:测试装置包括一个用聚氨酯织物覆盖的 K45 泡沫支撑面模拟物、一个高分辨率压力绘图系统和一个模拟覆盖组织的硅胶层。使用新的骶骨和脚跟压头将敷料暴露在 30 和 80 毫米汞柱的临床相关负荷下 60 秒。对照组使用相同的设置,不使用敷料。统计意义采用 95% CI 和 t 检验(α = .05):与对照组相比,所有敷料都能降低压力并增加接触面积(P < 0.05)。对于两个压头,敷料 A 和 B 的峰值压力均低于敷料 C 和 E。敷料 D 和 B 在足跟压痕处的接触面积最大、压力最低,而敷料 E 在两个压痕处的接触面积最小、压力最高。结果还显示,两个压痕的平均压力与接触面积之间存在很强的负相关:该研究使用解剖学上精确的压头和临床上相关的压力,证明与不使用敷料相比,敷料 A 和 B 能显著降低界面压力,这表明在脆弱部位进行压力再分布具有潜在的优势。需要在不同的护理环境中进行更多的临床研究,以验证本研究的结果。
期刊介绍:
A peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal, Advances in Skin & Wound Care is highly regarded for its unique balance of cutting-edge original research and practical clinical management articles on wounds and other problems of skin integrity. Each issue features CME/CE for physicians and nurses, the first journal in the field to regularly offer continuing education for both disciplines.