Maegan Spiteri , Alexandros Christou , Colin Boyle , Louise Savine , Peter R. Worsley , Spyros Masouros
{"title":"三种压疮预防支持面在坐位患者中维持经皮气体张力的能力","authors":"Maegan Spiteri , Alexandros Christou , Colin Boyle , Louise Savine , Peter R. Worsley , Spyros Masouros","doi":"10.1016/j.jtv.2025.100920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>This study evaluates the effectiveness of three seating interventions—static foam (SF), alternating pressure (AP) cushion, and lateral pressure (LP) device—in reducing pressure ulcer (PU) risk among seated individuals by maintaining tissue perfusion levels in buttocks tissue.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eight healthy participants were seated on each intervention for 30 min, followed by a 10-min standing recovery period. Transcutaneous tissue oxygen (TcPO<sub>2</sub>) and carbon dioxide (TcPCO<sub>2</sub>) were measured at the right ischial tuberosity to monitor tissue perfusion. Responses were recorded as a percentage change relative to each participant's unloaded baseline gas tensions and categorised into three levels of risk. Statistical analysis included paired, one-tailed t-tests to compare the impact of each seating intervention on transcutaneous gas tensions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both AP and LP devices revealed a lower magnitude of ischemic carbon dioxide compared to the SF cushion, with mean TcPCO<sub>2</sub> increases of 13.8 % ± 12.0 % and 14.3 % ± 12.0 %, respectively, versus 96.5 % ± 106.5 % for SF. The corresponding TcPO<sub>2</sub> decrease was significantly less for AP (−29.2 % ± 15.7 %) and LP (−28.3 % ± 32.6 %) than for SF (−67.8 % ± 29.0 %). Participants spent significantly more time in the lowest risk category on the AP (17.5 min) and LP (18.2 min) devices than on the SF (2.2 min).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The AP and LP devices maintained favourable buttocks tissue perfusion more effectively compared to the SF, indicating their potential benefit in reducing PU risk for seated patients. These findings support the need for further research to confirm the efficacy of interventions across large sample sizes and longer durations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of tissue viability","volume":"34 3","pages":"Article 100920"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ability of three pressure-ulcer prevention support-surfaces to maintain physiological transcutaneous gas tensions in the seated patient\",\"authors\":\"Maegan Spiteri , Alexandros Christou , Colin Boyle , Louise Savine , Peter R. Worsley , Spyros Masouros\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jtv.2025.100920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>This study evaluates the effectiveness of three seating interventions—static foam (SF), alternating pressure (AP) cushion, and lateral pressure (LP) device—in reducing pressure ulcer (PU) risk among seated individuals by maintaining tissue perfusion levels in buttocks tissue.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eight healthy participants were seated on each intervention for 30 min, followed by a 10-min standing recovery period. Transcutaneous tissue oxygen (TcPO<sub>2</sub>) and carbon dioxide (TcPCO<sub>2</sub>) were measured at the right ischial tuberosity to monitor tissue perfusion. Responses were recorded as a percentage change relative to each participant's unloaded baseline gas tensions and categorised into three levels of risk. Statistical analysis included paired, one-tailed t-tests to compare the impact of each seating intervention on transcutaneous gas tensions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both AP and LP devices revealed a lower magnitude of ischemic carbon dioxide compared to the SF cushion, with mean TcPCO<sub>2</sub> increases of 13.8 % ± 12.0 % and 14.3 % ± 12.0 %, respectively, versus 96.5 % ± 106.5 % for SF. The corresponding TcPO<sub>2</sub> decrease was significantly less for AP (−29.2 % ± 15.7 %) and LP (−28.3 % ± 32.6 %) than for SF (−67.8 % ± 29.0 %). Participants spent significantly more time in the lowest risk category on the AP (17.5 min) and LP (18.2 min) devices than on the SF (2.2 min).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The AP and LP devices maintained favourable buttocks tissue perfusion more effectively compared to the SF, indicating their potential benefit in reducing PU risk for seated patients. These findings support the need for further research to confirm the efficacy of interventions across large sample sizes and longer durations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of tissue viability\",\"volume\":\"34 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100920\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of tissue viability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965206X25000683\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of tissue viability","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965206X25000683","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The ability of three pressure-ulcer prevention support-surfaces to maintain physiological transcutaneous gas tensions in the seated patient
Aims
This study evaluates the effectiveness of three seating interventions—static foam (SF), alternating pressure (AP) cushion, and lateral pressure (LP) device—in reducing pressure ulcer (PU) risk among seated individuals by maintaining tissue perfusion levels in buttocks tissue.
Methods
Eight healthy participants were seated on each intervention for 30 min, followed by a 10-min standing recovery period. Transcutaneous tissue oxygen (TcPO2) and carbon dioxide (TcPCO2) were measured at the right ischial tuberosity to monitor tissue perfusion. Responses were recorded as a percentage change relative to each participant's unloaded baseline gas tensions and categorised into three levels of risk. Statistical analysis included paired, one-tailed t-tests to compare the impact of each seating intervention on transcutaneous gas tensions.
Results
Both AP and LP devices revealed a lower magnitude of ischemic carbon dioxide compared to the SF cushion, with mean TcPCO2 increases of 13.8 % ± 12.0 % and 14.3 % ± 12.0 %, respectively, versus 96.5 % ± 106.5 % for SF. The corresponding TcPO2 decrease was significantly less for AP (−29.2 % ± 15.7 %) and LP (−28.3 % ± 32.6 %) than for SF (−67.8 % ± 29.0 %). Participants spent significantly more time in the lowest risk category on the AP (17.5 min) and LP (18.2 min) devices than on the SF (2.2 min).
Conclusion
The AP and LP devices maintained favourable buttocks tissue perfusion more effectively compared to the SF, indicating their potential benefit in reducing PU risk for seated patients. These findings support the need for further research to confirm the efficacy of interventions across large sample sizes and longer durations.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Tissue Viability is the official publication of the Tissue Viability Society and is a quarterly journal concerned with all aspects of the occurrence and treatment of wounds, ulcers and pressure sores including patient care, pain, nutrition, wound healing, research, prevention, mobility, social problems and management.
The Journal particularly encourages papers covering skin and skin wounds but will consider articles that discuss injury in any tissue. Articles that stress the multi-professional nature of tissue viability are especially welcome. We seek to encourage new authors as well as well-established contributors to the field - one aim of the journal is to enable all participants in tissue viability to share information with colleagues.