McInnes, E., Jammali-Blasi, A., Bell-Syer, S. E, Dumville, J. C & Cullum, N. (2011). Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,(4), 1-125. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001735.pub4
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 methods: 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Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐randomised studies, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer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.
School of Nursing, Midwifery & Paramedicine
Access may be restricted.