Pressure Ulcers and Wound Care
- Author: Richard Salcido, MD; Chief Editor: Consuelo T Lorenzo, MD more...
Scope of the Problem
Pressure ulcers, or PRUs, have affected humans for ages, and addressing the overall management of pressure ulcers is now a prominent national healthcare issue. Despite current interest and advances in medicine, surgery, nursing care, and self-care education, pressure ulcers remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality. This is particularly true for persons with impaired sensation, prolonged immobility, or advanced age.[1] See the image below.
Advanced sacral pressure ulcer shows the effects of pressure, shearing, and moisture. Research in the area of pressure ulcers, specifically in characterization, prevention, and treatment of pressure ulcers, is important in preventing secondary complications in persons with disabilities. As the standards of acute, posttraumatic, and rehabilitation care improve, the population of persons with lifelong functional impairments continues to grow. Consequently, the prevention of secondary complications has become an increasingly prominent concern.
Definitions
Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary defines an ulcer as "an inflammatory, often suppurating lesion on the skin or an internal mucosal surface of the body, as in the duodenum, resulting in necrosis of the tissue." Dorland's Medical Dictionary describes an ulcer (Latin, ulcus; Greek, heliosis) as "a local defect or excavation on the surface of an organ or tissue which is produced by sloughing of inflammatory necrotic tissue."
The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) is an independent nonprofit organization formed in 1987 and dedicated to the prevention, management, treatment, and research of pressure ulcers. The NPUAP defines a pressure ulcer as an area of unrelieved pressure over a defined area, usually over a bony prominence, resulting in ischemia, cell death, and tissue necrosis.[2]
Description
The taxonomic description of pressure ulcers lacks general consistency.[1, 3, 4] Textbooks refer to these lesions in various ways, usually in regard to the depth of the lesion based on macroscopic and morphologic criteria.[2] The ulcers are often referred to as pressure sores, bedsores, or decubitus ulcers (from the Latin word decumbere, which means "to lie on one's side"). Because persons at risk can develop lesions in various positions (eg, sitting), the term pressure ulcers is used in this article.
Measurement
Standardized measuring techniques are necessary to provide quantitative information on wound healing and to validate research.
The most common method of monitoring the healing of pressure ulcers utilizes photography and diagrams.[4] The Vista MED wound measurement system, manufactured by Verg, Inc (Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada), uses color-balanced and light-balanced computerized photographic images to help clinicians obtain precise objective information about the size, shape, outline, area, and color of the wound. It also provides objective information regarding the changes of surrounding tissue.
In addition, digital subpixel techniques are available to measure clinician-defined image areas, such as wound edges, eschar, necrotic tissue, or granulation formation. Concise documented measurement contributes to efficient wound treatment, management, and progress review.
Numerous other devices have been used to measure the volume (volumetrics) and the dimensions of the pressure ulcer wound. One simple method is to use a measured amount of saline to infer the volume of the wound. More sophisticated radiographic techniques, such as sinus radiographs, CT scans, and MRIs, are available but too expensive for routine use.[4]
Common sites of involvement
Several studies reveal varying sites of occurrence with different diagnoses.[1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7] These sites of occurrence include the ischium (28%), the sacrum (17-27%), the trochanter (12-19%), and the heel (9-18%). See the image below.
Heel pressure ulcer. Pressure ulcers commonly develop on the occiput of geriatric and pediatric patients who spend extended amounts of time lying supine. Patients with the secondary manifestations of osteoporosis and associated thoracic kyphosis can develop pressure ulcers over the spinous processes. Elderly patients and patients with diabetes often have pressure ulcers on the heel.
Epidemiology
According to Gosnell and VanEtten, approximately 1 million pressure ulcers occur in the United States; however, definitive information on the epidemiology and natural history of this condition is still limited. Unfortunately, studies to date have been encumbered by methodologic issues and variability in describing the lesions.[2, 8]
The incidence in hospitalized patients ranges from 2.7%[9] to 29%, and the prevalence in hospitalized patients is 3.5%[10] to 69%.[11] Patients in critical care units have an increased risk of pressure ulcers, as evidenced by a 33% incidence[12] and 41% prevalence.[13] Elderly patients admitted to acute care hospitals for nonelective orthopedic procedures, such as hip replacement and treatment of long bone fractures, are at even greater risk, with a 66% incidence.[14, 15]
In the nursing home environment, the prevalence of pressure ulcers is in the range of 2.6-24%.[8, 16] The incidence is 25% in residents admitted from an acute care hospital.[16] Patients with preexisting pressure ulcers demonstrate a 26% incidence of additional pressure ulcer formation over a 6-month period. The incidence in chronic care hospitals is reported to be 10.8%,[17] whereas 33% of those admitted to a chronic care hospital have pressure ulcers.[18] Long-term follow-up demonstrates that most ulcers healed within a year.[8, 18]
Persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) and associated comorbidity are also at increased risk.[19, 20] The incidence of pressure ulcers in this population is in the range of 25-66%.[6, 21]
One study of the prevalence of pressure ulcers in community residents with SCI demonstrated that those with higher-level SCI lesions carry a greater risk of developing pressure ulcers than those with lower-level lesions. Of 100 patients with pressure ulcers, 33 had ulcers that were classified as stage 2 or greater. Blacks (n =13) had more severe ulcers than other racial groups in the study.[6] Some authors speculate that detecting erythema can be more difficult with skin that has darker pigmentation.[22] This difficulty can result in undetected grade I pressure ulcers, as prolonged nonblanching erythema is typically an early warning sign of pressure ulcer risk and development.
Economic impact
In 1991, a market study was performed to estimate the treatment costs and the costs of hospitals stays for patients who developed ulcers during hospitalization. These costs were estimated to be as much as $6 billion a year. In elderly populations and in those who are institutionalized, pressure ulcers are one of the most costly diseases to treat.
These ulcers add an estimated burden of over $1 billion of expenditures and an additional 2.2 million Medicare hospital days to the United States healthcare system.[23] The cost of treatment is $2000-$40,000 per pressure ulcer,[2, 24, 25] depending on the stage of development.[26, 27]
For reconstructive surgery, costs are estimated at $25,000 per patient.[2] These costs alone, without the cost of human suffering, demonstrate the importance of preventing pressure ulcers and of cost-effective treatment practices.
A 2011 cost-effective analysis study by Pham et al determined that both clinical and economic evidence maintains that pressure redistribution mattresses should be used to prevent pressure ulcers in long-term care patients. In addition, the study found that perineal foam cleansers and dry skin emollients are also economical ways to stop pressure ulcers from developing.[28] Pham et al also concluded in a separate study that pressure redistribution foam mattresses should also be used to help improve elderly patients' health and save hospital expenses in the emergency department.[29]
Morbidity and mortality
Patients predisposed to pressure ulcers are at higher risk of morbidity and mortality. Infection is the most common major complication of pressure ulcers. The offending pathologic organisms in pressure ulcers can be anaerobic or aerobic. Aerobic pathogens commonly are present in all pressure ulcers,[30] whereas anaerobes tend to be present more often in larger wounds (65% in grade III and above).[31]
The most common organisms isolated from pressure ulcers are Proteus mirabilis, group D streptococci, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus species, Pseudomonas species, and Corynebacterium organisms. Patients with bacteremia are more likely to have Bacteroides species in their pressure ulcers.[31] These wounds do not need to be cultured routinely unless systemic signs of infection are present (eg, malodorous drainage, leukocytosis, fever, hypotension, increased heart rate, changes in mental status).
Clinical alertness is needed because the signs commonly associated with impeding or fulminating infection are frequently absent in elderly patients or in patients who are immunocompromised. In geriatric patients with pressure ulcers, bacteremia is reported to occur at the rate of 3.5 per 10,000 hospital discharges.[23] Because the mortality rate in this population approaches 50%,[32] antibiotic treatment for wound infection or secondary bacteremia provides the appropriate spectrum of coverage specific to the offending organisms. Because indiscriminate use of antibiotics leads to resistant organisms and because the specific drugs of choice and antimicrobial agents change rapidly, physiatrists typically need to consult an infectious disease specialist to facilitate the management of these complex problems.
Sepsis also can occur secondary to osteomyelitis, which has been reported to occur in 26% of nonhealing ulcers.[23] A prospective study demonstrated that osteomyelitis was associated with nonhealing grade IV pressure ulcers in 86% of the study population.[33, 34] This study utilized 3-phase technetium methyl diphosphate radionuclide flow to detect early osteomyelitis.
Various tests can be used to diagnose osteomyelitis in patients with pressure ulcers. Plain radiographs have a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 50%, but radiographic findings often are not present in the early stages of infection. Bone scans are more sensitive, but they have low specificity (50%). Bone biopsy has the highest specificity (96%) and sensitivity (73%).[33, 34]
A combination of diagnostic tests, such as a determination of the leukocyte count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) with plain radiography provides a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 88%. If all 3 test results are positive, the positive predictive value of this combination is 69%. If all 3 test results are negative, the negative predictive value is 96%.[33, 34]
Osteomyelitis should be considered whenever an ulcer does not heal, especially if the ulcer is over a bony prominence. Clinicians also should rule out other conditions associated with nonhealing ulcers, such as heterotopic calcification or ossification. Most findings indicate that antibiotic treatment for osteomyelitis should last 6-8 weeks. Surgery is needed for some cases of chronic osteomyelitis.[19]
Systemic amyloidosis can result from chronic suppurative pressure ulcers. Additional complications of pressure ulcers include spreading cellulitis, a sinus tract abscess, septic arthritis, squamous cell carcinoma in the ulcer, a periurethral fistula, and heterotopic ossification. Because some of the secondary complications of pressure ulcers can preclude wound healing, they should be aggressively prevented and treated.[4] Complications may include infection, pain, depression, and even death.
Approximately 60,000 people die each year from complications of pressure ulcers.[3] Development of pressure ulcers has been associated with a 4.5-times greater risk of death than that for persons with the risk factors but without pressure ulcers.[23] A secondary complication, wound-related bacteremia, can increase the risk of mortality to 55%.[3, 5, 32, 35]
For patient education resources, see the Skin, Hair, and Nails Center and Diabetes Center, as well as Wound Care and Diabetic Foot Care.
Etiopathologic Factors
Overview
Numerous diverse etiopathologic factors interact to cause pressure ulcers. These factors can be classified as pathomechanical or pathophysiologic.[3, 36, 37]
Pathomechanical Factors (Extrinsic or Primary)
Prolonged pressure
The most important factor in the development of pressure ulcers is unrelieved pressure.[38, 39] Pressure ulcers arise from prolonged tissue ischemia caused by pressure that exceeds the tissue capillary pressure. Prolonged pressure deprives tissues of oxygen and essential nutrients, owing to ischemia and hypoxia, which then causes the necrosis and ulceration.[39]
Several critical questions at the heart of pressure ulcer research still remain unanswered: How much pressure is required to produce predictable ulceration? How long must pressure be sustained to produce predictable ulceration? Which tissues are at greatest risk of ulceration?
In 1930, Landis used a microinjection method to cannulate the arteriolar limb of capillaries in human fingernail beds to study capillary blood pressure.[40] He reported an average pressure of 32 mm Hg in the arteriolar limb, 22 mm Hg in the midcapillary bed, and 12 mm Hg on the venous side. Decades later, these findings were reproduced by utilizing laser Doppler methods in an animal model in which the mean capillary pressure, at 45 mm Hg, approximated human capillary pressure. This finding is useful for future studies of this component of the pressure ulcer cascade.[41, 42, 43]
Interface pressure
Interface pressure remains an ambiguous factor in the development of pressure ulcers. Defined as "perpendicular force per unit area between the body and support surface" by the NPUAP, it is commonly believed that interface pressure is affected by the stiffness and composition of the body tissue and by the geometric shape of the body being supported. While interface pressures less than 32 mm Hg are assumed by many clinicians to be safe, pressures in excess of 32 mm Hg are thought to lead to closure of capillary beds and tissue ischemia. However, these perceptions remain to be challenged.
Products aimed at reducing or relieving pressure have tended to use interface pressure as the standard for judging product efficacy.[41, 44] Further investigation of the application of the criterion standard of 32 mm Hg that resulted from Landis' work to pressure ulcer pathology is needed, particularly since the transmission of load on tissue and muscle can decrease or increase based on characteristics of the tissue at different sites.[45] Tissue can be more or less able to withstand pressure, depending on other patient characteristics.
The area of pressure as the primary factor in the development of pressure ulcers also requires more thorough study. For example, what helps persons with able bodies to withstand extreme tissue loads in areas at risk and avoid developing pressure ulcers? Why are persons with certain types of disease processes typically free from these ulcers? A few articles have noted that persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis are at relatively low risk for developing pressure ulcers because of the dermal thickening and increased collagen secondary to the increased density of the collagen fibrils associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.[46]
One hypothesis asserts that pressure overcoming capillary closing pressure leads to ischemia and reperfusion injury, notably in the muscle, which develops the lesion and eventually ulcerates. This ischemia-reperfusion mechanism ultimately leads to neutrophil-mediated inflammatory tissue destruction, most likely a free radical injury, that eventually causes pressure ulceration.[41, 42, 43]
Shear
Shear is mechanical stress directed parallel to the plane of interest. Shearing forces have been implicated as pathomechanical contributors in the development of pressure ulcers, especially those on the sacrum. Though scientific evidence is lacking, it is logical to conclude that the angular and vertical force that occurs downward when patients are in the semi-upright position in bed tends to distort the tissues and blood vessels near the sacrum, placing this region at risk for tissue breakdown.[37, 47] Furthermore, in a research project focused on assessing the pressure-reducing effects of operating-table mattresses, Defloor et al concluded that elevation of the top end of the operating table at 30° might cause high pressure and shearing force on the sacrum during head and neck surgery.[48] The synergy of shear and pressure leads to the formation of pressure ulcers.
Friction
Friction is the force of 2 surfaces moving across one another.[32] Friction and the increased drag coefficient that occurs when moving patients across bedsheets and other support surfaces can cause microscopic or macroscopic tissue trauma. Moisture, maceration, and tissue breakdown increase the surface tension of the skin and the support surface. Moisture from sensible fluid loss or incontinence leads to maceration of tissues, which in turn makes the tissues more susceptible to pressure, shear, and friction damage.
Immobility
Immobility is a major extrinsic factor associated with the risk and formation of pressure ulcers. Immobility in bed tends to cause pressure ulcers on the occiput, sacrum, heels, malleoli, and trochanteric regions, whereas patients who use wheelchairs for mobility tend to develop pressure ulcers over the ischial tuberosity.[49]
In patients who are paralyzed or who are neurologically compromised or who underwent prolonged periods of sedation or anesthesia, the afferent nerves are unable to engage the sensorimotor feedback system. As a result, early warnings of prolonged ischemia, such as discomfort, do not produce the normal adjustments in body position that intermittently relieve pressure on areas at risk.[32] Such adjustments occur instinctively in persons who are neurologically intact, even during sleep. While asleep, healthy subjects show some movement and change of position every 15 minutes.[50] Making fewer than 20 movements per night increases the risk of developing a pressure ulcer.[51]
In a study of 40 elderly patients, nocturnal movements associated with sleep tended to decrease as the length of the hospital stay increased.[17, 51] Analysis of periodic movements in persons at risk for pressure ulcers clearly suggests a relationship between spontaneous body movement and the development of pressure ulcers.[50]
In surgical patients, the duration of the immobility is even longer than the duration of the surgery because patients are already immobile during the preoperative period and remain so until arrival in the recovery room. Research has shown that the chance of developing pressure ulcers at least doubles in operations lasting longer than 4 hours.[52, 53, 54]
Studies using diverse measurement techniques have documented pressures at specific anatomic sites that are at risk for pressure ulcers.[55] In 1991, Schubert et al utilized a laser Doppler technique to measure local blood flow in geriatric patients at risk for pressure ulcers.[56] Their study demonstrated that geriatric patients have a delayed hyperemic response to increased regional blood flow as a result of pressure applied to areas at risk. Tissue at risk and ulcerous tissue were slower to exhibit increased blood flow as a result of a controlled local hyperthermic stimulation.[56]
Pathophysiologic Factors (Intrinsic or Secondary)
Pathophysiologic factors underlying pressure ulcers include fever, anemia, infection, ischemia, hypoxemia, hypotension, malnutrition, SCI, neurologic disease, decreased lean body mass, and increased metabolic demands. Nutrition and anemia are important factors in the healing and prevention of pressure ulcers.
Individuals with pressure ulcers should have adequate nutrition, especially good protein intake and stores. Decreased lean body mass is a particular risk factor. Clinical parameters indicating good nutrition and immunocompetence are adequate calorie intake and maintenance of ideal body weight. The indirect measurements of these parameters are total lymphocyte count, transferrin level, and total albumin and protein.[8, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64] Anemia is not an intrinsic risk factor; in addition, patients whose hemoglobin value is below 10 g/dL have difficulty healing.[65, 66]
Hypotension is an additional intrinsic risk factor for the formation of pressure ulcers.[24, 67] Treating the medical condition that predisposes a patient to these ulcers is imperative. If possible, the pathophysiologic factors should be controlled in conjunction with eliminating the pathomechanical factors. If any problem is treated in isolation, the multifactorial problem is not resolved.
Summary of Contributing Factors
Factors contributing to pressure ulcers are summarized below.
Pathomechanical factors (extrinsic or primary) include the following:
- Compression
- Maceration
- Immobility
- Pressure
- Friction
- Shear
Pathophysiologic factors (intrinsic or secondary) include the following:
- Fever
- Anemia
- Infection
- Ischemia
- Hypoxemia
- Malnutrition
- Spinal cord injury[20]
- Neurologic disease
- Decreased lean body mass
- Increased metabolic demands
Brief Review of Pressure Ulcer Research
A monograph prepared by the Research Committee of the NPUAP suggests several research priorities for pressure ulcers: (1) outcome-focused research, (2) intervention and product efficacy studies, (3) basic research related to staging of ulcers, (4) refinement of risk assessment methods, and (5) risk-based, multi-interventional trials. Additional issues requiring investigation include cost issues, ethical decision making, guideline dissemination, public policy, and national outcome evaluations. Methodologic issues, such as research design, study population, and control group use, also need further investigation.[2]
Early investigators tended to focus on pressure as the primary cause of pressure ulcers.[39, 68] Groth, Kosiak, and Dinsdale were among the first investigators to explore pressure and tissue injury relationships.
Groth found that pressure ulcers similar to those of humans could be produced experimentally in animals.[69] His experiments showed that larger muscle masses withstood pressure better. He noted that effective pressure force increases toward the smaller surface. This accounts for the greater destruction of tissue at the base of the inverted cone, typified by the small area of skin redness or destruction overlying a bony prominence. This condition is frequently observed in ischial ulcers, trochanteric ulcers, and (to a lesser degree) ulcers over the sacrum.
Groth also noted that generalized sepsis can result in local infection at the site of pressure, with abscess formation, extension of inflammation, thrombosis of the larger vessels, and, consequently, a larger area of tissue necrosis. He concluded that large-vessel thrombosis is not typically a cause of ulceration because of the extensive collateral circulation usually present in the skin.
In a classic experiment, Kosiak, a physiatrist, subjected dogs to accurately controlled pressures ranging from 100-550 mm Hg for 1-12 hours. Microscopic examination of tissue obtained 24 hours after the application of 60 mm Hg of pressure for only 1 hour showed cellular infiltration, extravasation, and hyaline degeneration. Tissues subjected to higher pressures for longer periods also showed muscle degeneration and venous thrombosis. Kosiak concluded that intense pressure of short duration was as injurious to tissues as lower pressure applied for longer periods of time. In both cases, tissue ischemia led to irreversible cellular changes and, ultimately, to necrosis and ulceration. He also concluded that prolonged pressure was the direct and primary cause of pressure ulcers.
Kosiak disagreed with Groth about the location and severity of skin damage, stating that it extended equally to the area under pressure instead of being most severe at the deepest part overlying the bony prominence. Kosiak concluded that skin and subcutaneous tissue provide a sling or suspension effect that allows only a fraction of the applied pressure to be transmitted to the deep tissues.
Husain reported microscopic changes in rat muscle subjected to a pressure of 100 mm Hg for as little as 1 hour.[70] His microscopic findings were similar to those of Groth and Kosiak. Keane observed that muscle is more susceptible to pressure injury than skin. Keane also noted that the body weight is borne on superficial, weight-bearing, bony prominences that are covered only with skin and superficial fascia.[71] Nola and Vistnes supported Keane's ideas by documenting significant areas of muscle necrosis on histological examination of rats when pressure was applied to a transposed muscle flap over a bone.[72] In cadaver dissections, Daniel and coworkers found that muscle is seldom interposed between bone and skin over bony prominences in normal human weight-bearing positions.[73]
Dinsdale analyzed the role of pressure and friction in the production of pressure ulcers in healthy and paralyzed pigs.[74] Pressures of 160-1120 mm Hg were mechanically applied with friction and without friction for 3 hours. The ulcerations that were produced extended into the dermis and persisted after 24 hours. Dinsdale concluded that friction is a factor in the pathogenesis of decubitus ulcers since it applies mechanical force in the epidermis. He also concluded that a constant pressure of 70 mm Hg applied for longer than 2 hours produced irreversible tissue damage. However, he did caution against blindly accepting the pressure ischemia relationship as the only cause for ulceration. Dinsdale also found that minimal changes occurred with intermittent pressure relief, even at pressures of 240 mm Hg.
In a later animal model experiment, involving anesthetized rats, Salcido and colleagues confirmed that muscle is more sensitive to pressure-induced ischemia than skin is.[43] They also noted that the association between ischemia reperfusion injury and experimentally derived pressure ulcers is evidenced by oxygen-free radical-mediated tissue destruction (as studied in biopsy specimens from animal lesions).
Clinical studies of pressure ulcers are difficult to assess because they are often qualitatively based on random observation and uncontrolled studies. More fundamental approaches must be considered with respect to these ulcers to arrive at more reliable conclusions. For example, what are the basic histologic, pathologic, and biochemical markers in an evolving pressure ulcer? Is it ethical to take a biopsy specimen of a human pressure ulcer for purposes of research? What are the multiple variables in the formation of pressure ulcers in the human environment?
Histology
A paucity of literature on the histopathologic nature of decubitus ulcers exists, particularly literature relating to ulcers in humans. Witkowski and Parish were among the first to publish on the histology of decubitus ulcers in human skin; however, their findings, which included vascular infiltrates, thrombosis, and edema, were not intended to represent a histopathologic continuum of the evolving pressure ulcer. Husain's experiments utilized hairy rats to analyze the histologic changes (primarily in the muscle) resulting from the application of pressure, and Kosiak's classic work on dogs focused primarily on the epidermis. Dinsdale showed that a combination of friction and pressure produced lesions in the epidermis of swine.
Salcido's research team has developed an analog system to study pressure ulcers in an animal model in which computer-controlled pressure was applied for 6 hours to the skin over the hip of anesthetized fuzzy rats.[43] Interval histopathologic changes seen in experimentally derived pressure ulcers have been characterized. Histologic findings included a scattering of neutrophils in the dermis and subcutaneum along the line of necrosis and patchy necrosis to the muscularis in the subdermal region. Foci of damage appeared to be associated with high concentrations of neutrophils, and lesions appeared to develop first in the muscle rather than in the dermis or epidermis.
Evidence indicates that the erosion typical of pressure ulcers is mediated via a neutrophil, an eosinophil, or a macrophage-induced exacerbation. Vascular damage is also apparent when these ulcers are present. Recurrent pressure results in increasingly severe damage to the vascular system and parenchyma consistent with an ischemia-reperfusion insult initiated through a free radical mechanism, which has implications for preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
Identifying Patients at Risk: Assessment Scales and Evaluation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, formerly Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
National consensus indicates a need for guidelines that can help providers standardize the treatment of pressure ulcers. These guidelines should improve the quality of care and help control the cost of treating pressure ulcers.[25, 75]
In response to this need, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR), which is now known as the agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), selected pressure ulcers as one of the major areas in which to develop clinical practice guidelines for prevention and treatment. The AHCPR guidelines were developed for the management of some other diseases and reflect a national trend toward standardization of care.[25, 75]
The AHCPR was established in December 1989 under the Omnibus Reconciliation Act. This agency was charged with the task of establishing science-based guidelines for patient care whenever a problem is common and treatment is highly variable and costly. After convening a multidisciplinary panel of experts, AHCPR released guidelines for the prediction and prevention of pressure ulcers in May 1992. Despite the fact that pressure ulcers are preventable and should not occur, they continue to be one of the most pervasive and perplexing problems in treating persons who are ill, recovering from illness, or functionally impaired.
Effective prevention and treatment measures depend on a comprehensive care plan that includes scheduled turning and body repositioning.[76] Uncertainties about the level of pressure at which cell damage occurs still remain. In fact, there is evidence that the frequency and intervals between turnings may be more critical than pressure in the production of pressure ulcers. Reswick and Rogers suggested the practice of turning patients every 2 hours, and this procedure remains the mainstay of prevention strategies. Various other factors clearly contribute to the development of pressure ulcers. However, the best advice still is to establish a regimen in which pressure is completely relieved on all areas of the body at regular intervals.[39, 76]
Providers working with persons at risk need to be able to recognize skin changes that might indicate an impending breakdown. This is particularly true in elderly patients or in patients who are immunocompromised because the signs of impending or fulminating infection are frequently absent in these patients. Systemic signs of infection that mark the need to culture wounds include malodorous drainage, leukocytosis, fever, hypotension, increased heart rate, and changes in mental status. The earliest clinical evidence of damage to the skin is inflammation of the skin that blanches on application of digital pressure. This process originally presents like a hyperemic response; however, unlike hyperemia, the inflammation persists longer, usually 30 minutes.[24] Prevention of progression to more serious damage requires immediate, complete elimination of pressure to the involved area.
If the proposition that pressure in excess of capillary pressure is the chief cause of pressure ulcers is accepted, then the primary prevention efforts have to be directed toward reducing or eliminating pressure over susceptible areas. The intensity and duration of external pressure and shearing forces necessary for pressure ulcers to occur depend on an individual's susceptibility, which could be summarized as the tissue tolerance. Nursing strategies include prevention of prolonged pressure, elimination of shearing forces and friction, and removal of skin secretions and excretions.
In a prospective follow-up study, 21.2% of patients who underwent surgery for more than 4 hours developed 70 pressure ulcers in the first 2 days following surgery. Twenty-one pressure ulcers deteriorated in the days following surgery. More than half (52.9%) of the lesions developed on the heels, and 15.7% developed in the sacral area.[53]
Additional interventions that may be indicated for patients most at risk for pressure ulcers include avoiding hot water; using a mild cleansing agent that does not irritate or dry the skin; using moisturizers; using topical agents such as moisture barriers; keeping the sheets dry and wrinkle free; providing adequate intake of protein and calories; and maintaining current levels of activity, mobility, and range of motion.
Massaging body prominences should also be avoided since this practice has been associated with increased tissue breakdown and risk for the formation of pressure ulcers.[24, 25, 77] Positioning devices such as pillows or foam wedges should be used to prevent direct contact between bony prominences (eg, knees, ankles). Donut-type devices should not be used because they are known to cause venous congestion and edema.[78]
Other recommendations are to avoid positioning patients directly on the trochanter, to maintain the head of the bed as low as possible, to utilize pressure-reducing devices on the bed (eg, various mattresses) and in the wheelchair (eg, cushions), and to use lifting devices such as a trapeze rather than dragging the patient. Of paramount importance is to use pressure-relieving surfaces during the first couple of days following surgery and to restrict continuous sitting in a chair to less than 2 hours until the patient is able to mobilize independently.
Interventions should be monitored and documented. Specific details that are required include who should provide the care, how often it should be provided, and the supplies and equipment needed. How the care is to be undertaken should be individualized, written down, and readily available. Results of the interventions and the care being rendered should be documented. To ensure continuity, documentation of the plan of care should be clear, concise, and accessible to every caregiver. Patient education is of utmost importance. Patients and everyone involved in their care should have the knowledge necessary to prevent the formation of pressure ulcers.[24]
Milne et al reported the results of a long-term acute care hospital's program to reduce the occurrence of pressure ulcers. The facility used a failure mode and effects analysis to determine where improvements in care were most needed.[79] The hospital found that its ulcer prevalence rates, which were believed to be above average, could be traced to such problems as "a lack of 1) wound care professionals, 2) methods to consistently document prevention and wound data, and 3) an interdisciplinary wound care team approach." Addressing these issues, the hospital reduced the prevalence of facility-acquired pressure ulcers from 41% (the baseline figure) to an average of 4.2%, over a 12-month period.
Outline of AHCPR prevention guidelines
Risk assessment includes the following:
- Complete medical history taking
- Determination of Norton (or Braden) score (see Table 1, below).
- Skin examination
- Identification of previous pressure ulcer sites
Prime candidates for pressure ulcers includes the following:
- Elderly persons
- Persons who are chronically ill (eg, those with cancer, stroke, or diabetes)
- Persons who are immobile (eg, due to fracture, arthritis, or pain)
- Persons who are weak or debilitated
- Patients with altered mental status (ie, under the effects of narcotics, anesthesia, or coma)
- Persons with decreased sensation and/or paralysis
Secondary factors include the following:
- Illness or debilitation increases pressure ulcer formation
- Fever increases metabolic demands
- Predisposing ischemia
- Diaphoresis promotes skin maceration
- Incontinence causes skin irritation and contamination
- Other factors, such as edema, jaundice, pruritus, and xerosis (dry skin)
Rationale for strategies to prevent pressure ulcers
Skin care is paramount and must be carried out in conjunction with the following principles:
Pressure relief is important. Patients should be shifted or turned in position every 2 hours. Support surfaces and specialty beds require criteria for use.
Patients can benefit from lying prone.
Minimize shearing forces by keeping the head of the bed lower than 45°.
Use an air-fluidized bed.
Persons who use a wheelchair should be taught to perform pushup exercises and to lean side to side for pressure relief.
Use of pressure-relieving cushions of air, foam, gel, or a combination can help relieve pressure.
Frictional relief is also important.
Nutritional support involves several steps, as follows:
- Obtain the patient's nutritional history.
- Perform physical examination.
- Obtain anthropometric measurements.
- Order laboratory studies (eg, albumin, total lymphocyte count, transferrin level).
- Provide enteral or parenteral support.
- Provide vitamin therapy.
Muscle spasms should be controlled. Involuntary muscle contractions can lead to abrasions. The use of oral antispasticity agents is the simplest method of controlling spasticity. Pressure ulcers occur more frequently in patients with flaccid paralysis than in those with spasticity.
Prevention of contractures is another strategy. Uncontrolled spasticity or lack of movement causes shortening of the muscles, usually the hip, knee, elbow, and ankle plantar flexors. Contractures can limit the patient to only a few positions. Contractures can be prevented in patients who have some mobility by encouraging ambulation and range-of-motion exercises twice daily.
Evaluation tools
Various investigators have sought to establish the reliability and predictive validity of instruments, such as the Braden scale. Prospective studies of these instruments and other risk assessment tools, combined with a study of additional risk factors, are needed to refine the instrumentation, thereby permitting improvement in prediction technologies and the targeting of specific preventive interventions.
Numerous approaches and techniques have been tested to identify persons at risk for the formation of pressure ulcers. A person who uses a wheelchair, is in bed for most of the day, or has impaired ability to reposition the body should be assessed for additional factors that increase risk of pressure ulcers Research has shown that a person's general physical and mental condition, nutritional status, activity level, mobility, and degree of bowel and bladder control all affect this risk.[24, 32, 57, 80, 81] Patients should be assessed when they are admitted to a unit or a facility and periodically thereafter or when they begin home care.
A simple clinical prediction rule based on 5 patient characteristics may help identify patients at increased risk for pressure ulcer development and in need of preventive measures. Detection of a pressure ulcer grade 2 or worse during admission to the hospital is directly related to the following independent predictors of pressure ulcers:[82]
- Age
- Weight at admission
- Abnormal appearance of the skin
- Friction and shear
- Planned surgery in the coming week
A systematic risk assessment can be accomplished by using a validation risk assessment tool such as the Braden scale or the Norton scale (see Table 1, below). Both of these instruments provide a means of predicting persons at risk for the development of pressure ulcers. No information is currently available to suggest that adaptations of these risk assessment tools or the assessment of any single risk factor or a combination of risk factors predicts risk as well as the overall scores obtained with these tools.[54, 83]
Table 1. Norton and Braden Scales (Open Table in a new window)
| Area of Comparison | Norton Scale | Braden Scale |
| Assessment criteria | Physical condition, mental condition, activity, mobility, incontinence (score ≥ 12 is at risk) | Activity, mobility, sensory perception, moisture, nutrition, friction, and shear |
| Attributes | Tested on elderly persons in hospital settings | Evaluated in diverse sites (eg, medical-surgery, ICUs, nursing homes) |
| Replications | Tested extensively | Tested extensively |
| Reliability | Not available | Good interrater reliability |
Treatment Guidelines
This section is based in part on the AHCPR guidelines for the treatment of pressure ulcers.[25] Once a pressure ulcer has developed, immediate treatment is required. Commonly used treatments over the years have included innovative mattresses, ointments, creams, solutions, dressings, ultrasound, ultraviolet heat lamps, sugar, and surgery. In choosing a treatment strategy, consideration should be given to the stage of the wound and the purpose of the treatment (eg, protection, moisture, removing necrotic tissue). An algorithm for assessment and treatment is available.[35, 84, 85]
Steps in wound assessment and treatment are as follows:
- Wound care may be divided into nonoperative and operative methods.
- Wound care is usually nonoperative for stage I and II pressure ulcers.
- Stage III and IV lesions may require surgical intervention.
- Approximately 70%-90% of pressure ulcers are superficial and heal by second intention.
Solutions for wound cleansing
The major purpose of cleansing the wound is to decrease its bioburden and facilitate healing.[84, 86] Normal saline is used when no germicidal action is required. Saline solution should also be used as a rinse after other solutions are used to irrigate the wound and minimize fluid shifts within newly forming tissue. Normal saline solution also reduces the drying effects that some irrigants may have on tissue.[84, 87]
Povidone-iodine is useful against bacteria, spores, fungi, and viruses. Dilution is recommended, and this treatment should be discontinued when granulation occurs.[84] Laboratory data demonstrate that povidone-iodine is toxic to fibroblasts in vitro, a finding that has theoretical implications for wound healing. Because povidone-iodine can affect thyroid function, it could be contraindicated for some patients.[87]
Acetic acid (0.5%) is specifically effective against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a particularly difficult and common organism in fungating lesions. Acetic acid can change the color of tissue and can mask potential superinfection. Rinsing with normal saline also is recommended.[87]
Sodium hypochlorite (2.5%) is another oxidizing agent available for cleansing. Although it has some germicidal activity, it is used primarily to debride necrotic tissue. Before using it, zinc oxide should be placed around the edges of the wound to reduce the amount of irritation.[84] Normal saline should be used as a rinse after sodium hypochlorite is used.[87] A multitude of cleansing agents are on the market, but none has been shown to be more efficacious than the others, and expert opinion still favors normal saline.[25]
Debridement and debriding agents
The purpose of wound debridement is to remove all materials that promote infection, delay granulation, and impede healing, including necrotic tissue, eschar, and slough (ie, the stringy yellow, green, or gray nonviable debris in an ulcer). Accurate ulcer staging cannot be made until necrotic tissue is removed.[88] Three debridement procedures are commonly used: enzymatic debridement, mechanical nonselective debridement, and sharp debridement.
Enzymatic debridement uses various chemical agents (proteolytic enzymes) that act by attacking collagen and liquefying necrotic wound debris without damaging granulation tissue.[25, 84] Proteolytic enzymes are used to chemically debride wounds. The action of these enzymes is aimed specifically at necrotic tissue.
Mechanical nonselective debridement, in which necrotic tissue is loosened and removed, is generally accomplished by whirlpool treatments, forceful irrigation, or use of wet-to-dry dressings. Wet-to-dry dressings involve placing wet gauze into the lesion and allowing it to dry. A few hours later, when the dressing is removed, the necrotic debris that has adhered to the dressing is also removed. Solutions commonly used for wet-to-dry dressings include normal saline and 0.25% acetic acid solution.
Povidone-iodine solution can be used to debride infected ulcers. Although the effervescent action of hydrogen peroxide results in wound debridement, it is not recommended for frequent use in pressure ulcers, because it indiscriminately removes necrotic material and fragile granulation tissue.[25]
The widespread practice of using hydrogen peroxide continues, but it is not recommended for long-term use because it and other cleansing agents have been found to be toxic to fibroblasts.[86, 89]
Once debridement has been completed and clean granulation tissue has been established, the use of debridement agents should be discontinued and the site should be kept clean and moist.[89]
Sharp debridement is surgical removal of the eschar and any devitalized tissue within it. Although sharp debridement is the most effective method of removing necrotic tissue, it is contraindicated in certain patients, particularly those who cannot withstand the loss of blood that may occur during the procedure. Moist devitalized tissue supports the proliferation and growth of pathogens. The removal of this devitalized tissue is a prerequisite to new tissue growth.
Sharp debridement is indiscriminate in the removal of vital and devitalized tissue. A great deal of clinical skill and judgment are needed in surgically debriding a wound.[80, 90]
Elderly patients and those with diabetes often have pressure ulcers of the heel that look black and have eschar. Conventional wisdom encourages physicians to debride the eschar, but it is usually protective and should be left to autodebride unless an active infection dictates more aggressive measures.
Surgical debridement is well established as an approach to pressure ulcer care, but more research is needed.
Dressings for pressure ulcers
Transparent adhesive dressings are semipermeable and occlusive. They allow gaseous exchange and transfer of water vapor from the skin, and they prevent maceration of the healthy skin around the wound. In addition, these dressings are not absorptive, they reduce the incidence of secondary infection, and they eliminate the risk of traumatic removal. However, transparent adhesive dressings do not function well on patients who are diaphoretic or on patients with wounds that have significant exudate.[35]
Hydrocolloid wafer dressings contain hydroactive particles that interact with wound exudate to form a gel. These dressings provide absorption of minimal to moderate amounts of exudate and keep the wound surface moist. This gel can have fibrillolytic properties that enhance wound healing, protect against secondary infection, and insulate the wound from contaminants.[35, 91]
Gel dressings are available in sheet form, in granules, and as liquid gel. All forms of gel dressings keep the wound surface moist as long as they are not allowed to dehydrate. Some gel dressings provide limited to moderate absorption, some provide insulation, and some provide protection against bacterial invasion. All gel dressings provide atraumatic removal(see Table 2, below).[25, 35, 92]
Calcium alginate dressings (eg, Sorbsan) are semiocclusive, highly absorbent, and easy to use.[93, 94] They are natural, sterile, nonwoven dressings derived from brown seaweed. Calcium alginate dressings are extremely effective in treating wet (exudative) wounds and can be used on wounds that are contaminated or infected.[93]
Treatment strategies for topical therapy
Assessment for appropriate topical therapy includes the following:
- The nature of the wound surface and depth of the lesion must be evaluated.
- Is the skin intact or covered by eschar?
- If the epidermis is denuded, does the ulcer have a clean granulating surface or a necrotic base?
- Is the ulcer nondraining or draining?
- If the wound is draining, what is the amount, color, and odor of the exudate?
Categories of topical products and dressings include the following:
- Antimicrobials
- Moisturizers
- Emollients
- Topical circulatory stimulants
- Semipermeable dressings
- Calcium alginate dressings
- Hydrocolloid and hydrogel dressings
- Exudate absorbers
- Wet-to-dry dressings
- Moist-to-dry dressings
- Enzymes and liquid or gel film formers
Table 2. Eight Major Dressing Types and Their Key Performance Characteristics (Open Table in a new window)
| Major Dressing Categories | Key Performance Characteristics |
| Alginates (sheets and fillers) | Exudate absorption, obliterate dead space, and autolytic debridement |
| Foams (sheets and fillers) | Obliterate dead space, retain moisture, exudate absorption, and mechanical debridement |
| Gauzes (woven and nonwoven) | Obliterate dead space, retain moisture, absorb exudate, and mechanical debridement |
| Hydrocolloids (wafers and fillers) | Occlusion, moisture retention, obliterate dead space, and autolytic debridement |
| Hydrogels (sheets and fillers) | Retain moisture and autolytic debridement |
| Transparent films | Occlusion, retain moisture, and autolytic debridement |
| Wound fillers | Obliterate dead space, absorb exudate, retain moisture, and autolytic debridement |
| Wound pouches | Exudate control |
A wide variety of additional therapeutic methods are being evaluated for the treatment of chronic wounds, specifically for pressure ulcer management.[95] These include electrotherapy,[96] the application of growth factors,[97, 98] and negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure.[99, 100, 101] Negative pressure therapy enhances wound healing by reducing edema, increasing the rate of granulation tissue formation, and stimulating circulation. Increased blood flow translates into a reduction in the bacterial load (removal of interstitial tissue) and delivery of infection-fighting leukocytes.[102]
The following are general indications for negative pressure wound therapy[103] :
- Chronic wounds
- Acute wounds
- Traumatic wounds
- Partial-thickness wounds
- Dehisced wounds
- Pressure ulcers
- Flaps
- Grafts
The following are general contraindications for negative pressure wound therapy[103] :
- Malignancy of the wound
- Untreated osteomyelitis
- Nonenteric or unexplored fistulas
- Known allergies or sensitivity to acrylic adhesives
- Placement of negative pressure dressings directly in contact with exposed blood vessels, organs, or nerves
Antimicrobials and antibiotics
Silver sulfadiazine has an excellent antimicrobial spectrum of activity, low toxicity, ease of application, and minimal pain. Silver sulfadiazine inhibits DNA replication and modification of the cell membrane of Staphylococcus aureus; Escherichia coli; Candida albicans; Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, and Proteus species; and Enterobacteriaceae. It may cause a transient leukopenia (5-15% incidence) for large burn wounds.
With antibiotics and antisepsis, an algorithmic approach is important when one evaluates a patient with an infected wound. First, the practitioner must decide whether the patient has a local or a systemic infection. Local signs of infection in a wound include rubor, dolor, and calor; systemic signs of infection include fever, tachycardia, hypotension, delirium, and alterations in mental status in older patients.
Then, the practitioner must decide which antibiotic is most appropriate for the patient. Systemic antibiotics administered to combat wound infection can be divided into 5 main groups: penicillins, cephalosporins, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and sulfonamides. Other antibiotics include clindamycin, metronidazole, and trimethoprim.
When one is considering antibiotic therapy for a patient with a wound, most practitioners make their selection on the basis of the spectrum of coverage the antibiotic provides. Before a final selection is made, however, practitioners should consider parameters beyond the wound and targeted pathogen. Many important questions must be answered before prescribing an antibiotic to a patient with a wound, including the following:
- Does the patient have known allergies?
- Does the patient have any metabolic impairments that would alter the pharmacokinetics or the pharmacodynamics of the drug (eg, impaired renal or liver function)?
- What are the effects of the drug on the hemopoietic system?
- What attributes does the drug possess for effective tissue penetration (eg, how much of the drug actually ends up in the tissue of interest)? (This is especially important in patients with osteomyelitis.)
- How is the drug metabolized?
- What are the patient's total weight and lean body and fat mass? (These compartmentalized components of body mass affect the delivery of antibiotic to the targeted site.
The adverse effects of antibiotics are well known and those that impede wound healing should be considered and counteracted. By their very nature, antibiotics eliminate normal flora (especially in the gastrointestinal tract), predisposing a patient to Clostridium difficile infection and diarrhea. This scenario makes a pelvic wound hard to keep dry and predisposes a patient to dehydration.
Antibiotic resistance is a major concern, specifically that involving methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA), penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus species, and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. Therefore, when antibiotic therapy is ordered, the wound care specialist must be alert to detect signs of antibiotic resistance, and he or she must be attentive to the results of the laboratory data, especially culture and sensitivity results. Consider establishing a relationship with an infectious disease specialist who can participate as an active member of the wound care team.
Patients who are immunocompromised or have impaired chemotaxis resulting in bacterial overgrowth or candidiasis need concomitant treatment with selected antimycotic or antifungal agents.
Other considerations in prescribing an antibiotic include the patient's length of hospital stay, the availability of home health services and infusion services, the influence of the pharmacy and therapeutics committee, the hospital's formulary, and the influence of the payer's approval of prescription benefits.
Physiology of Wound Healing (Inflammation)
Overview
When the tissues are compromised by pressure ulcer formation, a vascular and cellular response to injury occurs. This inflammatory response serves to destroy, dilute, or sequester injurious agents and is the precursor to wound healing and repair. Local signs of this inflammatory reactive hyperemia (or nonblanching erythema) include redness, swelling, heat, and pain. The systemic indicators of infection or inflammation include elevated temperature and leukocytosis.
Healing by Primary and Secondary Union
Primary union
Wounds that are clean or surgically controlled can close by primary intention. Healing of this type of wound only requires reepithelialization. This type of wound heals by first intention.
Secondary union
Wounds that have some complicating factor that precludes immediate closure, such as infection or contamination, are allowed to form granulation tissue to fill the crater or gap. Such wounds are typically pressure ulcers, abscesses, or large-surface wounds. Large tissue defects fill by granulation followed by epithelialization. Wound closure occurs via wound contracture.
Wound healing by secondary intention or delayed closure differs from primary closure: (1) The inflammatory response is more intense, (2) greater amounts of granulation tissue are formed when larger wounds heal, and (3) wound contraction of large-surface wounds produces a scar that is considerably smaller than the initial dimensions of the wound.
Another problem encountered in wound healing is exuberant granulation (ie, proud flesh). This tissue protrudes above the margins of the wound and the closing defect, which precludes epithelialization. Some persons tend to form keloids, which are large, bulging, tumorous scars caused by abnormal amounts of collagen in connective tissues.
Surgical Considerations in Pressure Ulcer Management
Several options are available for surgical management of pressure ulcers, including direct closure, skin grafting, skin flaps, and musculocutaneous flaps. See the images below.
Sacral pressure ulcer before and after flap closure.
This patient required reconstruction of an extremely large pressure sore flap with a fillet total thigh flap procedure. Surgical management of pressure ulcers can provide skin coverage as well as soft tissue coverage. Flaps containing muscle provide a physiologic barrier to infection, eliminate dead space in the wound, and improve vascularity. Improved vascularity enhances local oxygen tension, provides extended soft tissue penetration for antibiotics, and improves total lymphocyte function.[36, 104, 105]
When operative repair is considered, many other factors should be considered as well. These factors are perhaps best addressed by the entire team caring for the patient.
The patient should be medically stable and able to benefit from the procedure. The patient should also participate in the decision. Operative procedures often result in blood loss and prolonged exposure to general anesthesia. The nutritional status of the patient must be considered because good nutritional parameters are required for good wound healing and immune function.
Tobacco use and smoking are associated with intrinsic factors that compromise wound healing.[106] For example, carbon monoxide and nicotinic acid are potent vasoconstrictors that increase blood viscosity.[107] These factors predispose tissue to excessive oxidase activity and free radical injury. Under normal conditions, the body is able to handle normal oxidative stress. However, with excessive stress comes increased risk for development of pressure ulcers and impaired wound healing. A neutrophil-mediated free radical injury results in excessive oxidase activity, which can cause vascular damage and thrombosis leading to cell death and tissue destruction.[41, 42, 43]
Factors associated with impaired healing should be corrected preoperatively. Several procedures are commonly utilized and discussed next.
Direct closure
Although direct closure is the simplest procedure, pressure ulcers considered for surgery are usually too large to be closed by direct primary closure. Because these wounds are tense as a result of large soft-tissue defects, direct closure can lead to wound defects, excessive wound tension, and a paucity of soft tissue coverage. Tissue expanders have been used to provide more skin surface and to facilitate closure.[37]
Skin grafts
Split-thickness skin grafts can be used to repair shallow defects and pressure ulcers, but skin grafts provide only a skin barrier. When applied directly to granulating bone, skin grafts quickly erode, thus precluding healing. They also cause scars in the area from which the skin is harvested, and the transplanted skin is never as tough as the original skin.
Skin flaps
Before the 1970s, repair using local full-thickness skin flaps was the standard surgical treatment for ulcers; today, they are typically used as alternatives to secondary repair.[108] Local skin flaps have a random vascular supply, and the tissue repair is essentially a redistribution of inadequately perfused tissue rather than a planned revascularization by using specific blood vessels. See the images below.
Small sacral pressure sores can be reconstructed with the inferior-based skin rotation flap, with or without the superior gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap.
Sacral pressure sore reconstruction using the technique described in Image 4. Musculocutaneous flaps
Musculocutaneous flaps are usually the best choice for patients with SCIs and for those who have a loss of muscle function that does not contribute to a comorbidity. For patients who are ambulatory, the choice is less clear since the improved blood supply and reliability of the muscle flap must be balanced against the need to sacrifice functional muscle units.[109, 110, 111] Musculocutaneous flaps can help heal osteomyelitis and limit the damage caused by shearing, friction, and pressure.[73, 112, 113] They bring muscle and skin to the area of the defect and are probably as resistant to future pressure ulcers as the original skin.
Free flaps
Free flaps are muscle-type flaps in which the vein and artery are disconnected at the donor site and are reconnected to the vessels at the recipient site with the aid of a microscope. This is the most complex method of wound closure and has not yet been described in the literature addressing pressure ulcers.
Support Surfaces and Special Beds
Support surfaces have become an important and widely used modality in the treatment and prevention of pressure ulcers. Numerous products that claim to reduce the occurrence of pressure ulcers are on the market; however, few clinical trials have been performed to evaluate the effectiveness of these products. These claims are based on studies evaluating tissue interface pressures, which have become standards in distinguishing pressure relief from pressure reduction.[114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120] These concepts as well as device types have been used to develop a convenient classification to help select the appropriate products for pressure ulcer treatment and prevention.[44, 121]
Selection of a product must be based on the patient's management plan and the evaluation of an individual's risk factors for developing a pressure ulcer.[116, 122] These risk factors must be monitored, and the modalities must be reevaluated as the patient's condition improves or worsens. Finally, cost and service support must be evaluated.
An important focus in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is reducing pressure over the bony prominences to below capillary closing pressure (ie, 32 mm Hg), which has become the standard threshold value for evaluating support surfaces.[114, 115, 117, 123, 124] Since capillary closing pressure cannot be measured under clinical conditions, tissue interface pressure has been used to evaluate and compare products. Tissue interface pressure, an approximation of capillary closing pressure, is the force per unit area that acts perpendicularly between the body and the support surface.[121] Tissue interface pressure is measured using a pressure sensor placed between the patient and the support surface.
Much of the research comparing the tissue interface pressures of various surfaces involves case studies on healthy human adults.[32, 114, 115, 119, 123] These experiments use various sensors, making comparisons of the findings difficult, and they do not address other etiologic factors.[55]
Newer technologies, including transcutaneous oxygen tension and laser Doppler blood flow, are currently being evaluated.[55, 124] The force sensing array (FSA) pressure measurement assessment system uses a thin, flexible mat to determine interface pressures in a clinically effective method. The Windows-based computer software visually demonstrates the pressure map in a way that is easy for the clinician, patient, and support staff to understand. This software is useful in patient teaching, wheelchair or cushion selection, bed positioning, and documentation because it enables the clinician to track the pressure-relieving strategies chosen for each patient. Currently, no clear evidence supports the adequacy of these instruments, and further studies must be undertaken.
Classification
In 1992, Bryant developed a convenient classification system of support surfaces and special beds. The Bryant classification system distinguishes 3 types of devices: mattress overlays, mattress replacements, and specialty beds. Each device has specific characteristics as well as advantages and disadvantages (see Table 3, below). The mattress overlay is designed to be effective when applied directly over a mattress. Mattress replacement systems are designed for use on an existing hospital bed frame without an underlying mattress. Finally, specialty beds are entire units used in place of hospital beds.
Table 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Support Surfaces (Open Table in a new window)
| Surface | Advantages | Disadvantages |
| Air | Low maintenance Inexpensive Multipatient use Durable | Can be punctured Require proper inflation |
| Gel | Low maintenance Easy to clean Multipatient use Resists puncture | Heavy Expensive Little research |
| Foam | Lightweight Resists puncture No maintenance | Retains heat Retains moisture Limited life |
| Water | Readily available in community Easy to clean | Requires heater Transfers are difficult Can leak Heavy Difficult maintenance Procedures difficult |
| Dynamic overlays | Easy to clean Moisture control Deflates for transfers Reusable pump | Can be damaged by sharp objects Noisy Assembly required Requires power |
| Replacement mattresses | Reduced staff time Multipatient use Easy to clean Low maintenance | High initial cost May not control moisture Loses effectiveness |
| Low air loss | Head and foot of bed can be raised Less frequent turning required Pressure relieving Reduces shear and friction Moisture control | Noisy Transfers are difficult Expensive Requires energy source Restricts mobility Skilled setup required Rental charge |
| Air fluidized | Reduces shear and friction Lowest interface pressure Low moisture Less frequent turning required | Expensive Noisy Heavy Dehydration can occur Electrolyte imbalances can occur May cause disorientation Transfers are difficult Hot |
Each type of device may be subdivided into dynamic systems, which require an energy source to alternate pressure points, and static systems, which rely on redistribution of pressure over a large surface area and do not require an energy source. Each device may be further described as a pressure-reducing or pressure-relieving device.
Pressure-relieving devices are those that consistently reduce pressure below capillary closing pressure. Pressure-reducing devices keep pressures lower than with the standard hospital bed but not consistently below capillary closing pressure. Mediums used in mattress overlays and replacements include water, gel, foam, air, and composite products.
Air mattresses and overlays may be static or dynamic. Static devices work by redistributing local pressure over a wider tissue area. Dynamic devices use a power source to alternate air currents in order to redistribute the pressure against the human body. Most overlays and replacement mattresses are considered pressure-reducing devices. Specialty beds include low-air loss beds and air-fluidized beds. Low-air loss beds use separate air-filled cushions that are individually monitored to reduce pressures below capillary closing pressures. Air-fluidized therapy uses warm air forced through silicone beads to simulate a fluid environment in reducing pressures. The specialty beds are considered pressure-relieving devices.
Clinical trials for prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers have been performed on air-fluidized and low-air loss beds (see Table 4, below).[5, 125, 126, 127]
Although there is evidence that these surfaces can provide an environment in which ulcers can be prevented or improved, no evidence suggests that one support surface consistently performs better than all others in all circumstances.[5, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131] Therefore, patients should be actively treated on an individual basis to reduce specific risk factors. Selection of a support surface is an adjunct to other therapy.
A systematic review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review concluded that special foam mattresses designed to prevent pressure ulcers are generally more effective than standard mattresses in patients at risk. Organizations might consider the use of pressure-relief devices for high-risk patients in the operating room because this is associated with a reduction in the postoperative incidence of pressure ulcers.[132] An updated systematic study not only confirmed the benefit of higher-specification foam mattresses but also suggested that sheepskin overlays are also beneficial. One of the trials included in this analysis determined that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays. Additional research on support surfaces for prevention of pressure ulcers was recommended.[133]
Several studies found only limited evidence when comparing higher-technology products.[134, 132]
General measures, such as the introduction of adequate mattresses and guidelines for prevention and treatment, are promising tools. In a study from the Netherlands, the authors saw a significant decrease in hospital-acquired pressure ulcer frequency from 18% to 13% (P = .003) after 4 months and 11% (P < .001) after 11 months when adequate mattresses were used along with guidelines for prevention and treatment.[135]
Selection of a support surface
Selecting a support surface is futile unless the product's appropriateness can be assessed adequately beforehand. In addition to frequent written risk assessments, a dynamic management plan for each individual should include discontinuing the use of a support surface when it is determined that the patient is no longer at risk for developing pressure ulcers.[5, 128, 129, 136, 137]
Any individual thought to be at risk for developing pressure ulcers should be placed on a pressure-reducing device (eg, foam, static air, alternating air, gel, water) when lying in bed to relieve pressure on the heels.[78, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141]
For persons who use a wheelchair, pressure-reducing devices of foam, gel, air, or a combination of these materials should be used.[77, 118, 142, 143, 144]
Pressure-reducing devices should be used in addition to standard nursing care.[1, 81, 145]
Guidelines developed by the AHCPR Pressure Ulcer Panel for managing existing pressure ulcers include the following:
- Use positioning devices to raise a pressure ulcer off the support surface. If the patient is no longer at risk for developing pressure ulcers, these devices may reduce the need for pressure-reducing overlays, mattresses, and beds. Avoid using donut-type devices.[78]
- Assess all patients with existing pressure ulcers to determine their risk for developing additional pressure ulcers. If the patient remains at risk, use a pressure-reducing surface.[12, 68, 146, 147]
- If patients can assume a variety of positions without bearing weight on the lesion and without "bottoming out," a static support surface should be used.[126, 128, 131, 148]
- If the patient cannot assume a variety of positions without bearing weight on the ulcer, if the patient fully compresses the static support surface, or if the pressure ulcer does not show evidence of healing, a dynamic surface should be used.[126]
- Finally, if the patient has large stage III or stage IV pressure ulcers on multiple turning surfaces, a pressure-relieving product is warranted.[2, 5, 126, 131, 148, 149]
Currently, no perfect product exists; therefore, it is important to tailor product selection to the patient's needs. Add to this the considerations of variation in cost and customer services associated with each product, and the choices become even more difficult. Each institution needs a written policy and procedure guidelines addressing the variables associated with product selection. Additional randomized clinical trials to distinguish efficacy are needed. Further, research that addresses the accuracy of tissue interface pressures in determining prevention of pressure ulcers and in advancing new technologies relating to capillary closing pressure must be continued.
Table 4. Clinical Trials of Pressure-Relief Surfaces (Open Table in a new window)
| Investigators | Surface | Investigation | Results |
| Allman R, et al[5] | Clinitron air-fluidized bed vs Lapidus air float alternating air mattress with foam pad as conventional therapy | Prospective, randomized, clinical trial of 72 acutely hospitalized patients with pressure sores | Air-fluidized therapy showed a median improvement in total surface area of 1.2 cm2 vs 0.5 cm2 with conventional therapy Outcomes were not significantly different for patients with small sores For sores >7.8 cm2, air-fluidized beds showed a statistically significant improvement, with median reduction of sores of 5.3 cm2 vs 4.0 cm2 on conventional therapy In masked assessment 63% of patients improved with air-fluidized therapy vs 29% with conventional therapy After adjustment for other factors, air-fluidized therapy was 5.6 times more likely than standard therapy to show improvement on masked assessment |
| Ferrell B, et al[126] | Kin-air low-air-loss bed vs 10-cm convoluted foam overlaying a regular hospital mattress | Prospective, randomized clinical trial of 84 nursing home patients with pressure sores | Rate of healing is 3 times greater in the low-air-loss bed Pressure sores are 2.5 times more likely to heal with Kin-air |
| Inman KJ, et al[127] | Kin-air low-air-loss bed vs standard hospital bed | Controlled, randomized, clinical trial of 100 critically ill hospital patients at risk of pressure ulcers; included cost analysis | Of 49 patients in the Kin-air group, 8 developed pressure sores vs 39 of 49 patients using the standard bed With Kin-air, significantly fewer patients developed single, multiple, or severe pressure ulcers No significant difference was found regarding the resolution of pressure ulcers The air-suspension bed provided more clinically effective treatment less expensively through all scenarios in the sensitivity analysis |
Discharge Planning, Future Trends, Summary, and Resources
Discharge planning
Discharge planning begins early during hospitalization and requires an interdisciplinary approach. Knowledge of available resources facilitates smooth transitions through all levels of the continuum of care. With more care conducted in the home environment, education of the patient and caregiver in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers becomes increasingly important. A variety of methods can be employed to facilitate this educational process, including charts, diagrams, photographs, and videos. This comprehensive approach can positively influence the overall patient outcome.[85]
Future trends in management
While physicians continue to strive for the ultimate treatment for pressure ulcers, the role of newer therapies such as cytokine growth factors (eg, recombinant platelet-derived growth factors and basic fibroblast growth factors and skin equivalents) must be considered.[4, 150] An increasing amount of evidence indicates that electrical stimulation may enhance the rate of wound healing in pressure ulcers.[151] Other exciting possibilities include free radical scavengers and special drug delivery systems used in a preventive way for areas at risk for pressure ulcers.[41, 42, 43] More research is needed, and a multitude of opportunities exist in this rapidly developing field. The gaps between basic, applied, and clinical outcomes research must be closed.
Summary
Many factors influence the development and healing of pressure ulcers. Nursing plays a pivotal role in this challenging and complex process, using a multifaceted approach involving skin care, pressure relief, and nutritional support. Prevention is the key to managing pressure ulcers, and it begins with a complete medical and nursing history, a risk assessment, and skin examination when the patient is admitted.[24, 25, 75]
Pathomechanical and pathophysiologic factors that subject the tissue at risk to potential skin breakdown should receive particular attention. Patients should be kept clean and dry and should be repositioned frequently. For patients at risk, adequate pressure relief must be provided, along with adequate nutritional support.
For patients who develop pressure ulcers, these preventive measures must be used with the techniques of general wound care. Nonoperative wound care may involve simple topical therapy, as for pressure ulcers with unbroken skin or superficial lesions with nondraining, noninfected granulation tissue. For draining necrotic or infected lesions, treatment also may include absorption agents, calcium alginate dressings, wound coverings, debridement, and antimicrobial therapy. Other therapeutic modalities, such as whirlpool, physical therapy, and specialty beds, may also be added to the treatment regimen.
Other resources
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(Formerly the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research)
540 Gaither Road
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: (301) 427-1364
E-mail: info@ahrq.gov
National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel
Robin M. Turner, Executive Director
12100 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 130
Reston, VA 20190
Phone: (703) 464-4849
Fax: (703) 435-4390
E-mail: rturner@drohanmgmt.com
Abrussezze RS. Early assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers. In: Lee BY, ed. Chronic Ulcers of the Skin. New York: McGraw-Hill;1985: 1-9.
National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pressure ulcers: incidence, economics, risk assessment. Consensus Development Conference Statement. West Dundee, Ill:. SN Publications;1989.
Allman RM. Pressure ulcers among the elderly. N Engl J Med. Mar 30 1989;320(13):850-3. [Medline].
Yarkony GM. Pressure ulcers: a review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Aug 1994;75(8):908-17. [Medline].
Allman RM, Walker JM, Hart MK, et al. Air-fluidized beds or conventional therapy for pressure sores. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. Nov 1987;107(5):641-8. [Medline].
Fuhrer MJ, Garber SL, Rintala DH, et al. Pressure ulcers in community-resident persons with spinal cord injury: prevalence and risk factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Nov 1993;74(11):1172-7. [Medline].
Garber SL, Campion LJ, Krouskop TA. Trochanteric pressure in spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Nov 1982;63(11):549-52. [Medline].
Brandeis GH, Morris JN, Nash DJ, Lipsitz LA. The epidemiology and natural history of pressure ulcers in elderly nursing home residents. JAMA. Dec 12 1990;264(22):2905-9. [Medline].
Gerson LW. The incidence of pressure sores in active treatment hospitals. Int J Nurs Stud. 1975;12(4):201-4. [Medline].
Shannon ML, Skorga P. Pressure ulcer prevalence in two general hospitals. Decubitus. Nov 1989;2(4):38-43. [Medline].
Meehan M. Multisite pressure ulcer prevalence survey. Decubitus. Nov 1990;3(4):14-7. [Medline].
Bergstrom N, Demuth PJ, Braden BJ. A clinical trial of the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Nurs Clin North Am. Jun 1987;22(2):417-28. [Medline].
Robnett MK. The incidence of skin breakdown in a surgical intensive care unit. J Nurs Qual Assur. Nov 1986;1(1):77-81. [Medline].
Roberts BV, Goldstone LA. A survey of pressure sores in the over sixties on two orthopaedic wards. Int J Nurs Stud. 1979;16(4):355-64. [Medline].
Versluysen M. How elderly patients with femoral fracture develop pressure sores in hospital. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). May 17 1986;292(6531):1311-3. [Medline].
Reed JW. Pressure ulcers in the elderly: prevention and treatment utilizing the team approach. Md State Med J. Nov 1981;30(11):45-50. [Medline].
Barbenel JC, Jordan MM, Nicol SM, Clark MO. Incidence of pressure-sores in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area. Lancet. Sep 10 1977;2(8037):548-50. [Medline].
Berlowitz DR, Wilking SV. Risk factors for pressure sores. A comparison of cross-sectional and cohort-derived data. J Am Geriatr Soc. Nov 1989;37(11):1043-50. [Medline].
Basson MD, Burney RE. Defective wound healing in patients with paraplegia and quadriplegia. Surg Gynecol Obstet. Jul 1982;155(1):9-12. [Medline].
Regan MA, Teasell RW, Wolfe DL, et al. A systematic review of therapeutic interventions for pressure ulcers after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Feb 2009;90(2):213-31. [Medline].
Okamoto GA, Lamers JV, Shurtleff DB. Skin breakdown in patients with myelomeningocele. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jan 1983;64(1):20-3. [Medline].
Basset A, Liautaud B, Ndiaye B. Dermatology of Black Skin. Oxford: Oxford University Press;1986.
Staas WE Jr, Cioschi HM. Pressure sores--a multifaceted approach to prevention and treatment. West J Med. May 1991;154(5):539-44. [Medline].
Bergstrom N, Braden B. A prospective study of pressure sore risk among institutionalized elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. Aug 1992;40(8):747-58. [Medline].
Bergstrom N, Bennett MA, Carlson CE, et al. Treatment of Pressure Ulcers. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 14. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0642. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services;1994.
Frantz RA. Pressure ulcer costs in long term care. Decubitus. Aug 1989;2(3):56-7. [Medline].
Hibbs P. The economics of pressure ulcer prevention. Decubitus. Aug 1988;1(3):32-8. [Medline].
Pham B, Stern A, Chen W, et al. Preventing Pressure Ulcers in Long-term Care: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Arch Intern Med. Oct 13 2011;[Medline].
Pham B, Teague L, Mahoney J, et al. Early Prevention of Pressure Ulcers Among Elderly Patients Admitted Through Emergency Departments: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Ann Emerg Med. Nov 2011;58(5):468-478.e3. [Medline].
Vaziri ND, Cesarior T, Mootoo K, et al. Bacterial infections in patients with chronic renal failure: occurrence with spinal cord injury. Arch Intern Med. Jul 1982;142(7):1273-6. [Medline].
Peromet M, Labbe M, Yourassowsky E, et al. Anaerobic bacteria isolated from decubitus ulcers. Infection. 1973;1(4):205-7. [Medline].
Maklebust J. Pressure ulcers: etiology and prevention. Nurs Clin North Am. Jun 1987;22(2):359-77. [Medline].
Deloach ED, Christy RS, Ruf LE, et al. Osteomyelitis underlying severe pressure sores. Contemp Surg. 1992;40:25-32.
Deloach ED, DiBenedetto RJ, Womble L, Gilley JD. The treatment of osteomyelitis underlying pressure ulcers. Decubitus. Nov 1992;5(6):32-41. [Medline].
Doughty D. The process of wound healing: a nursing perspective. Prog Develop Ostomy Wound Care. 1990;2:3-12.
Anthony JP, Huntsman WT, Mathes SJ. Changing trends in the management of pelvic pressure ulcers: a 12-year review. Decubitus. May 1992;5(3):44-7, 50-1. [Medline].
Brand P. Pressure sores, the problem. In: Kenedi R, Cowden J, Scales J, eds. Bed Sore Biomechanics. London:. MacMillan Press;1976: 19-23.
Kosiak M. Etiology and pathology of ischemic ulcers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Feb 1959;40(2):62-9.
Kosiak M. Prevention and rehabilitation of pressure ulcers. Decubitus. May 1991;4(2):60-2, 64, 66 passim.
Landis E. Micro-injection studies of capillary blood pressure in human skin. Heart. 1930;15:209-28.
Salcido R, Carney J, Fisher S, et al. A reliable animal model of pressure sore development: The role of free radicals. J Am Paraplegia Soc. 1993;16:61.
Salcido R, Donofrio JC, Fisher SB, et al. Histopathology of pressure ulcers as a result of sequential computer- controlled pressure sessions in a fuzzy rat model. Adv Wound Care. Sep 1994;7(5):23-4, 26, 28 passim. [Medline].
Salcido R, Fisher SB, Donofrio JC, et al. An animal model and computer-controlled surface pressure delivery system for the production of pressure ulcers. J Rehabil Res Dev. May 1995;32(2):149-61. [Medline].
Krouskop TA, Noble PC, Garber SL, Spencer WA. The effectiveness of preventive management in reducing the occurrence of pressure sores. J Rehabil R D. Jul 1983;20(1):74-83.
Bennett L, Lee BY. Pressure versus shear in pressure sore causation. In: Lee BY, ed. Chronic Ulcers of the Skin. New York: McGraw-Hill;1985: 39-56.
Watanabe S, Yamada K, Ono S, Ishibashi Y. Skin changes in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: light and electron microscopic observations. J Am Acad Dermatol. Dec 1987;17(6):1006-12. [Medline].
Reichel SM. Shearing force as a factor in decubitus ulcers in paraplegics. J Am Med Assoc. Feb 15 1958;166(7):762-3.
Defloor T, De Schuijmer JD. Preventing pressure ulcers: an evaluation of four operating-table mattresses. Appl Nurs Res. Aug 2000;13(3):134-41. [Medline].
Lloyd EE, Baker F. An examination of variables in spinal cord injury patients with pressure sores. SCI Nurs. Spring 1986;3(2):19-22. [Medline].
Exton-Smith AN, Sherwin RW. The prevention of pressure sores. Significance of spontaneous bodily movements. Lancet. Nov 18 1961;2:1124-6.
Barbenel JC, Ferguson-Pell MW, Beale AQ. Monitoring the mobility of patients in bed. Med Biol Eng Comput. Sep 1985;23(5):466-8. [Medline].
Hoshowsky VM, Schramm CA. Intraoperative pressure sore prevention: an analysis of bedding materials. Res Nurs Health. Oct 1994;17(5):333-9.
Schoonhoven L, Defloor T, Grypdonck MH. Incidence of pressure ulcers due to surgery. J Clin Nurs. Jul 2002;11(4):479-87. [Medline].
Walton-Geer PS. Prevention of pressure ulcers in the surgical patient. AORN J. Mar 2009;89(3):538-48; quiz 549-51. [Medline].
Feldman DL, Sepka RS, Klitzman B. Tissue oxygenation and blood flow on specialized and conventional hospital beds. Ann Plast Surg. May 1993;30(5):441-4. [Medline].
Schubert V, Fagrell B. Evaluation of the dynamic cutaneous post-ischaemic hyperaemia and thermal response in elderly subjects and in an area at risk for pressure sores. Clin Physiol. Mar 1991;11(2):169-82. [Medline].
Bozzetti F, Terno G, Longoni C. Parenteral hyperalimentation and wound healing. Surg Gynecol Obstet. Nov 1975;141(5):712-4. [Medline].
Breslow R. Nutritional status and dietary intake of patients with pressure ulcers: review of research literature 1943 to 1989. Decubitus. Feb 1991;4(1):16-21. [Medline].
Breslow R, Hallfrisch J, Moser PB, et al. High calories and protein improve healing of pressure sores in malnourished nursing home patients. Fed Proc. 1987;46:1010.
Brose L. Prealbumin as a marker of nutritional status. J Burn Care Rehabil. Jul-Aug 1990;11(4):372-5. [Medline].
Dowding C. Pressure sores: the role of nutrition. Community Outlook. Feb 8 1984;70. [Medline].
Ek AC, Unosson M, Bjurulf P. The modified Norton scale and the nutritional state. Scand J Caring Sci. 1989;3(4):183-7. [Medline].
Breslow RA, Hallfrisch J, Goldberg AP. Malnutrition in tubefed nursing home patients with pressure sores. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. Nov-Dec 1991;15(6):663-8. [Medline].
Breslow RA, Hallfrisch J, Guy DG, et al. The importance of dietary protein in healing pressure ulcers. J Am Geriatr Soc. Apr 1993;41(4):357-62. [Medline].
Perkash A, Brown M. Anemia in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. J Am Paraplegia Soc. Jan-Apr 1986;9(1-2):10-5. [Medline].
Perkash A, Brown M. Anaemia in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Paraplegia. Aug 1982;20(4):235-6. [Medline].
Reswick JB, Rogers JE. Experience at Rancho Los Amigos Hospital with devices and techniques to prevent pressure sores. In: Kenedi RM, Cowden JM, Scales JT, eds. Bedsore Biomechanics. London:. University Park Press;1976: 300.
Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, Holman V. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Nurs Res. Jul-Aug 1987;36(4):205-10. [Medline].
Groth KE. Clinical observations and experimental studies of the pathogenesis of decubitus ulcers. Acta Clin Scand. 1942;87(suppl 76):207.
Husain T. An experimental study of some pressure effects on tissues, with reference to the bed-sore problem. J Pathol Bacteriol. Oct 1953;66(2):347-58.
Keane FX. The function of the rump in relation to sitting and the Keane Reciprocating Wheelchair Seat. Paraplegia. Feb 1979;16(4):390-402. [Medline].
Nola GT, Vistnes LM. Differential response of skin and muscle in the experimental production of pressure sores. Plast Reconstr Surg. Nov 1980;66(5):728-33. [Medline].
Daniel RK, Hall EJ, MacLeod MK. Pressure sores-a reappraisal. Ann Plast Surg. Jul 1979;3(1):53-63. [Medline].
Dinsdale SM. Decubitus ulcers: role of pressure and friction in causation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Apr 1974;55(4):147-52. [Medline].
Bergstrom N. Panel for the Prediction and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers in Adults. Prediction and Prevention Clinical Practice Guideline, Number 3. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service. AHCPR Publication No. 920047. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services;1992.
Smith AM, Malone JA. Preventing pressure ulcers in institutionalized elders: assessing the effects of small, unscheduled shifts in body position. Decubitus. Nov 1990;3(4):20-4. [Medline].
Lindan O. Etiology of decubitus ulcers: an experimental study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Nov 1961;42:774-83.
Crewe R. Problems of rubber ring nursing cushions and a clinical survey of alternative cushions for ill patients. Care Sci Pract. 1987;5:9-11.
Milne CT, Trigilia D, Houle TL, et al. Reducing pressure ulcer prevalence rates in the long-term acute care setting. Ostomy Wound Manage. Apr 2009;55(4):50-9. [Medline].
Black JM, Black SB. Surgical management of pressure ulcers. Nurs Clin North Am. Jun 1987;22(2):429-38. [Medline].
VanEtten NK, Sexton P, Smith R. Development and implementation of a skin care program. Ostomy Wound Manage. Mar-Apr 1990;27:40-54. [Medline].
Schoonhoven L, Grobbee DE, Donders AR, et al. Prediction of pressure ulcer development in hospitalized patients: a tool for risk assessment. Qual Saf Health Care. Feb 2006;15(1):65-70.
Saleh M, Anthony D, Parboteeah S. The impact of pressure ulcer risk assessment on patient outcomes among hospitalised patients. J Clin Nurs. Apr 3 2009;[Medline].
Knauer CJ. Management of malignant fungating breast lesions. Prog Develop Ostomy Wound Care. 1990;2:3-11.
Gorecki C, Nixon J, Madill A, Firth J, Brown JM. What influences the impact of pressure ulcers on health-related quality of life? A qualitative patient-focused exploration of contributory factors. J Tissue Viability. Nov 30 2011;[Medline].
Rodeheaver GT, Kurtz L, Kircher BJ, Edlich RF. Pluronic F-68: a promising new skin wound cleanser. Ann Emerg Med. Nov 1980;9(11):572-6. [Medline].
Bryant CA, Rodeheaver GT, Reem EM, et al. Search for a nontoxic surgical scrub solution for periorbital lacerations. Ann Emerg Med. May 1984;13(5):317-21. [Medline].
Bruce TA, Shever LL, Tschannen D, Gombert J. Reliability of Pressure Ulcer Staging: A Review of Literature and 1 Institution's Strategy. Crit Care Nurs Q. Jan 2012;35(1):85-101. [Medline].
Johnson AR, White AC, McNalley B. Comparison of common topical agents for wound treatment: cytotoxicity for human fibroblast in culture. Wounds. 1989;1:186-92.
Cooper DM. Challenge of open wound assessment in the home setting. Prog Develop Ostomy Wound Care. 1990;2:11-18.
Hutchinson JJ, McGuckin M. Occlusive dressings: a microbiologic and clinical review. Am J Infect Control. Aug 1990;18(4):257-68.
Krasner D. Shifting paradigms for wound care: dressing decisions; multidisciplinary care; effectiveness. In: Portnow J, ed. Wound Care. Vol 1. Durable Medical Equipment Review;1994: 12.
Gilchrist T, Martin AM. Wound treatment with Sorbsan--an alginate fibre dressing. Biomaterials. Oct 1983;4(4):317-20. [Medline].
McMullen D. Clinical experience with a calcium alginate dressing. Dermatol Nurs. Aug 1991;3(4):216-9, 270. [Medline].
Werdin F, Tennenhaus M, Schaller HE, et al. Evidence-based management strategies for treatment of chronic wounds. Eplasty. Jun 4 2009;9:e19. [Medline].
Flemming K, Cullum N. Electromagnetic therapy for the treatment of pressure sores. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;CD002930. [Medline].
Rees RS, Robson MC, Smiell JM, Perry BH. Becaplermin gel in the treatment of pressure ulcers: a phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Wound Repair Regen. May-Jun 1999;7(3):141-7. [Medline].
Landi F, Aloe L, Russo A, et al. Topical treatment of pressure ulcers with nerve growth factor: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. Oct 21 2003;139(8):635-41.
Ford CN, Reinhard ER, Yeh D, et al. Interim analysis of a prospective, randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure versus the healthpoint system in the management of pressure ulcers. Ann Plast Surg. Jul 2002;49(1):55-61; discussion 61. [Medline].
Evans D, Land L. Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;CD001898. [Medline].
Gupta S, Baharestani M, Baranoski S, et al. Guidelines for managing pressure ulcers with negative pressure wound therapy. Adv Skin Wound Care. Nov-Dec 2004;17 Suppl 2:1-16.
Niezgoda JA. Combining negative pressure wound therapy with other wound management modalities. Ostomy Wound Manage. Feb 2005;51(2A Suppl):36-8.
Mendez-Eastman S. Guidelines for using negative pressure wound therapy. Adv Skin Wound Care. Nov-Dec 2001;14(6):314-22; quiz 324-5. [Medline].
Becker H. The distally-based gluteus maximus muscle flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. May 1979;63(5):653-6. [Medline].
Bruck JC, Buttemeyer R, Grabosch A, Gruhl L. More arguments in favor of myocutaneous flaps for the treatment of pelvic pressure sores. Ann Plast Surg. Jan 1991;26(1):85-8. [Medline].
Fincham JE. Smoking cessation: treatment options and the pharmacist's role. Am Pharm. May 1992;NS32(5):62-70. [Medline].
Read RC. Presidential address. Systemic effects of smoking. Am J Surg. Dec 1984;148(6):706-11. [Medline].
Sanchez S, Eamegdool S, Conway H. Surgical treatment of decubitus ulcers in paraplegics. Plast Reconstr Surg. Jan 1969;43(1):25-8. [Medline].
Koshima I, Moriguchi T, Soeda S, et al. The gluteal perforator-based flap for repair of sacral pressure sores. Plast Reconstr Surg. Apr 1993;91(4):678-83. [Medline].
Kroll SS, Rosenfield L. Perforator-based flaps for low posterior midline defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. Apr 1988;81(4):561-6. [Medline].
Vyas SC, Binns JH, Wilson AN. Thoracolumbar-sacral flaps in the treatment of sacral pressure sores. Plast Reconstr Surg. Feb 1980;65(2):159-63. [Medline].
Mathes SJ, Feng LJ, Hunt TK. Coverage of the infected wound. Ann Surg. Oct 1983;198(4):420-9. [Medline].
Vasconez LO, Schneider WJ, Trukiewicz MJ. Pressure sores. Curr Probl Surg. 1977;24:23.
Allen V, Ryan DW, Murray A. Air-fluidized beds and their ability to distribute interface pressures generated between the subject and the bed surface. Physiol Meas. Aug 1993;14(3):359-64. [Medline].
Allen V, Ryan DW, Murray A. Potential for bed sores due to high pressures: influence of body sites, body position, and mattress design. Br J Clin Pract. Jul-Aug 1993;47(4):195-7. [Medline].
Aronovitch SA. A retrospective study of the use of specialty beds in the medical and surgical intensive care units of a tertiary care facility. Decubitus. Jan 1992;5(1):36-42. [Medline].
Maklebust JA, Mondoux L, Sieggreen M. Pressure relief characteristics of various support surfaces used in prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. J Enterostomal Ther. May-Jun 1986;13(3):85-9. [Medline].
Reddy N, Cochran G. Phenomenological theory underlying pressure-time relationship in decubitus ulcer formation. Fed Proc. 1979;38:1153.
Thompson-Bishop JY, Mottola CM. Tissue interface pressure and estimated subcutaneous pressures of 11 different pressure-reducing support surfaces. Decubitus. Mar 1992;5(2):42-6, 48. [Medline].
McInnes E, Dumville JC, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SE. Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Dec 7 2011;12:CD009490. [Medline].
Bryant R. Acute and Chronic Wounds: Nursing Management. St Louis:. Mosby-Year Book;1992.
University Hospital Consortium. Guidelines for the Use of Pressure Relief Devices in the Treatment and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers. Oak Brook, IL:. University Hospital Consortium Technology Advancement Center;1990.
Patel UH, Jones JT, Babbs CF, et al. The evaluation of five specialized support surfaces by use of a pressure-sensitive mat. Decubitus. May 1993;6(3):28-31, 34, 36-7. [Medline].
Seiler WO, Allen S, Stahelin HB. Influence of the 30 degrees laterally inclined position and the 'super- soft' 3-piece mattress on skin oxygen tension on areas of maximum pressure--implications for pressure sore prevention. Gerontology. 1986;32(3):158-66. [Medline].
Exton-Smith AN, Overstall PW, Wedgwood J, Wallace G. Use of the 'air wave system' to prevent pressure sores in hospital. Lancet. Jun 5 1982;1(8284):1288-90. [Medline].
Ferrell BA, Osterweil D, Christenson P. A randomized trial of low-air-loss beds for treatment of pressure ulcers. JAMA. Jan 27 1993;269(4):494-7. [Medline].
Inman KJ, Sibbald WJ, Rutledge FS, Clark BJ. Clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of an air suspension bed in the prevention of pressure ulcers. JAMA. Mar 3 1993;269(9):1139-43.
Conine TA, Daechsel D, Lau MS. The role of alternating air and Silicore overlays in preventing decubitus ulcers. Int J Rehabil Res. 1990;13(1):57-65. [Medline].
Jackson BS, Chagares R, Nee N, Freeman K. The effects of a therapeutic bed on pressure ulcers: an experimental study. J Enterostomal Ther. Nov-Dec 1988;15(6):220-6.
Strauss MJ, Gong J, Gary BD, et al. The cost of home air-fluidized therapy for pressure sores. A randomized controlled trial. J Fam Pract. Jul 1991;33(1):52-9. [Medline].
Warner DJ. A clinical comparison of two pressure-reducing surfaces in the management of pressure ulcers. Decubitus. May 1992;5(3):52-5, 58-60, 62-4. [Medline].
Cullum N, McInnes E, Bell-Syer SE, Legood R. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;CD001735.
McInnes E, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SE, Dumville JC, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Apr 13 2011;4:CD001735. [Medline].
Clark M, Hiskett G, Russell L. Evidence-based practice and support surfaces: are we throwing the baby out with the bath water?. J Wound Care. Nov 2005;14(10):455-8. [Medline].
De Laat EH, Schoonhoven L, Pickkers P, et al. Implementation of a new policy results in a decrease of pressure ulcer frequency. Int J Qual Health Care. Nov 10 2005;[Medline].
Parish LC, Witkowski JA. Clinitron therapy and the decubitus ulcer: preliminary dermatologic studies. Int J Dermatol. Nov 1980;19(9):517-8. [Medline].
St. Clair M. Survey of the uses of the Pegasus airwave system in the United Kingdom. J Tissue Viabil. 1992;12:9-16.
Andersen KE, Jensen O, Kvorning SA, Bach E. Decubitus prophylaxis: a prospective trial on the efficiency of alternating-pressure air-mattresses and water-mattresses. Acta Derm Venereol. 1983;63(3):227-30.
Daechsel D, Conine TA. Special mattresses: effectiveness in preventing decubitus ulcers in chronic neurologic patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Apr 1985;66(4):246-8. [Medline].
Jester J, Weaver V. A report of clinical investigation of various tissue support surfaces used for the prevention, early intervention and management of pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage. Jan-Feb 1990;26:39-45.
Whitney JD, Fellows BJ, Larson E. Do mattresses make a difference?. J Gerontol Nurs. Sep 1984;10(9):20-5. [Medline].
DeLateur BJ, Berni R, Hangladarom T, Giaconi R. Wheelchair cushions designed to prevent pressure sores: an evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Mar 1976;57(3):129-35. [Medline].
Fergson-Pell M, Cochran G, Cardi M, Trachtman L. A knowledge-based program for pressure sore prevention. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1986;463:284-286.
Garber SL, Krouskop TA, Carter RE. A system for clinically evaluating wheelchair pressure-relief cushions. Am J Occup Ther. Oct 1978;32(9):565-70. [Medline].
International Association of Enterostomal Therapy. Dermal wounds: pressure sores. Philosophy of the IAET. J Enterostomal Ther. Jan-Feb 1988;15(1):4-17.
Norton D. Calculating the risk: reflections on the Norton Scale. Decubitus. Aug 1989;2(3):24-31. [Medline].
Norton D, McLaren R, Exton-Smith A. An Investigation of Geriatric Nursing Problems in Hospital. London:. Churchill Livingstone;1975.
Smoot EC 3rd. Clinitron bed therapy hazards. Plast Reconstr Surg. Jan 1986;77(1):165. [Medline].
Nimit K. Guidelines for home air-fluidized bed therapy, 1989. Health Technol Assess Rep. 1989;(5):1-11. [Medline].
Falanga V, Zitelli JA, Eaglstein WH. Wound healing. J Am Acad Dermatol. Sep 1988;19(3):559-63. [Medline].
Levine SP, Kett RL, Gross MD, et al. Blood flow in the gluteus maximus of seated individuals during electrical muscle stimulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Aug 1990;71(9):682-6. [Medline].
Allman RM, Goode PS, Burst N, et al. Pressure ulcers, hospital complications, and disease severity: impact on hospital costs and length of stay. Adv Wound Care. Jan-Feb 1999;12(1):22-30. [Medline].
Allman RM, Laprade CA, Noel LB, et al. Pressure sores among hospitalized patients. Ann Intern Med. Sep 1986;105(3):337-42. [Medline].
Ameis A, Chiarcossi A, Jimenez J. Management of pressure sores. Comparative study in medical and surgical patients. Postgrad Med. Feb 1980;67(2):177-84. [Medline].
Baron MC. The skin and wound healing. Top Clin Nurs. Jul 1983;5(2):11-22. [Medline].
Black JM. Moving toward consensus on deep tissue injury and pressure ulcer staging. Adv Skin Wound Care. Oct 2005;18(8):415-6, 418, 420-1.
Braddom RL, Leadbetter MG. The use of a tissue expander to enlarge a graft for surgical treatment of a pressure ulcer in a quadriplegic. Case report. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. Apr 1989;68(2):70-2. [Medline].
Brown MM, Boosinger J, Black J, Gaspar T. Nursing innovation for prevention of decubitus ulcers in long term care facilities. J Plast Reconstr Surg Nurs. May 1981;1(2):51-5. [Medline].
Cunha BA. Osteomyelitis in elderly patients. Clin Infect Dis. Aug 1 2002;35(3):287-93. [Medline].
Dorland WA. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary. 25th ed. Philadelphia:. WB Saunders Co;1974: 1668.
Feuchtinger J, Halfens RJ, Dassen T. Pressure ulcer risk factors in cardiac surgery: a review of the research literature. Heart Lung. Nov-Dec 2005;34(6):375-85.
Gosnell DJ, Johannsen J, Ayres M. Pressure ulcer incidence and severity in a community hospital. Decubitus. Sep 1992;5(5):56-8, 60, 62. [Medline].
Klitzman B, Kalinowski C, Glasofer SL, Rugani L. Pressure ulcers and pressure relief surfaces. Clin Plast Surg. Jul 1998;25(3):443-50. [Medline].
Kosiak M, Kubicek WG, Olson M, et al. Evaluation of pressure as a factor in the production of ischial ulcers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Oct 1958;39(10):623-9.
Kyne L, Sougioultzis S, McFarland LV, Kelly CP. Underlying disease severity as a major risk factor for nosocomial Clostridium difficile diarrhea. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Nov 2002;23(11):653-9.
Livesley NJ, Chow AW. Infected pressure ulcers in elderly individuals. Clin Infect Dis. Dec 1 2002;35(11):1390-6. [Medline].
Longe RL. Current concepts in clinical therapeutics: pressure sores. Clin Pharm. Aug 1986;5(8):669-81. [Medline].
Merriam-Webster. Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary. Boston:. Houghton Mifflin Co;1984: 1250.
Monafo WW, West MA. Current treatment recommendations for topical burn therapy. Drugs. Sep 1990;40(3):364-73. [Medline].
National Center for Cost Containment. National Specialized Bed Study and Other Support Surface Guidelines. Washington, DC:. US Department of Veterans Affairs;1992.
Ono S, Toyokura Y, Mannen T, Ishibashi Y. Increased dermal collagen density in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. Jan 1988;83(1):81-92. [Medline].
Schoonhoven L, Haalboom JR, Bousema MT, et al. Prospective cohort study of routine use of risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcers. BMJ. Oct 12 2002;325(7368):797. [Medline].
Staas WE Jr, LaMantia JG. Decubitus ulcers and rehabilitation medicine. Int J Dermatol. Oct 1982;21(8):437-44. [Medline].
Washington Post. Health News. May 19, 1992;page 9.
Whittington KT, Briones R. National Prevalence and Incidence Study: 6-year sequential acute care data. Adv Skin Wound Care. Nov-Dec 2004;17(9):490-4.
Witkowski JA, Parish LC. Histopathology of the decubitus ulcer. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jun 1982;6(6):1014-21. [Medline].
Yoshikawa TT. Antimicrobial resistance and aging: beginning of the end of the antibiotic era?. J Am Geriatr Soc. Jul 2002;50(7 Suppl):S226-9.
| Area of Comparison | Norton Scale | Braden Scale |
| Assessment criteria | Physical condition, mental condition, activity, mobility, incontinence (score ≥ 12 is at risk) | Activity, mobility, sensory perception, moisture, nutrition, friction, and shear |
| Attributes | Tested on elderly persons in hospital settings | Evaluated in diverse sites (eg, medical-surgery, ICUs, nursing homes) |
| Replications | Tested extensively | Tested extensively |
| Reliability | Not available | Good interrater reliability |
| Major Dressing Categories | Key Performance Characteristics |
| Alginates (sheets and fillers) | Exudate absorption, obliterate dead space, and autolytic debridement |
| Foams (sheets and fillers) | Obliterate dead space, retain moisture, exudate absorption, and mechanical debridement |
| Gauzes (woven and nonwoven) | Obliterate dead space, retain moisture, absorb exudate, and mechanical debridement |
| Hydrocolloids (wafers and fillers) | Occlusion, moisture retention, obliterate dead space, and autolytic debridement |
| Hydrogels (sheets and fillers) | Retain moisture and autolytic debridement |
| Transparent films | Occlusion, retain moisture, and autolytic debridement |
| Wound fillers | Obliterate dead space, absorb exudate, retain moisture, and autolytic debridement |
| Wound pouches | Exudate control |
| Surface | Advantages | Disadvantages |
| Air | Low maintenance Inexpensive Multipatient use Durable | Can be punctured Require proper inflation |
| Gel | Low maintenance Easy to clean Multipatient use Resists puncture | Heavy Expensive Little research |
| Foam | Lightweight Resists puncture No maintenance | Retains heat Retains moisture Limited life |
| Water | Readily available in community Easy to clean | Requires heater Transfers are difficult Can leak Heavy Difficult maintenance Procedures difficult |
| Dynamic overlays | Easy to clean Moisture control Deflates for transfers Reusable pump | Can be damaged by sharp objects Noisy Assembly required Requires power |
| Replacement mattresses | Reduced staff time Multipatient use Easy to clean Low maintenance | High initial cost May not control moisture Loses effectiveness |
| Low air loss | Head and foot of bed can be raised Less frequent turning required Pressure relieving Reduces shear and friction Moisture control | Noisy Transfers are difficult Expensive Requires energy source Restricts mobility Skilled setup required Rental charge |
| Air fluidized | Reduces shear and friction Lowest interface pressure Low moisture Less frequent turning required | Expensive Noisy Heavy Dehydration can occur Electrolyte imbalances can occur May cause disorientation Transfers are difficult Hot |
| Investigators | Surface | Investigation | Results |
| Allman R, et al[5] | Clinitron air-fluidized bed vs Lapidus air float alternating air mattress with foam pad as conventional therapy | Prospective, randomized, clinical trial of 72 acutely hospitalized patients with pressure sores | Air-fluidized therapy showed a median improvement in total surface area of 1.2 cm2 vs 0.5 cm2 with conventional therapy Outcomes were not significantly different for patients with small sores For sores >7.8 cm2, air-fluidized beds showed a statistically significant improvement, with median reduction of sores of 5.3 cm2 vs 4.0 cm2 on conventional therapy In masked assessment 63% of patients improved with air-fluidized therapy vs 29% with conventional therapy After adjustment for other factors, air-fluidized therapy was 5.6 times more likely than standard therapy to show improvement on masked assessment |
| Ferrell B, et al[126] | Kin-air low-air-loss bed vs 10-cm convoluted foam overlaying a regular hospital mattress | Prospective, randomized clinical trial of 84 nursing home patients with pressure sores | Rate of healing is 3 times greater in the low-air-loss bed Pressure sores are 2.5 times more likely to heal with Kin-air |
| Inman KJ, et al[127] | Kin-air low-air-loss bed vs standard hospital bed | Controlled, randomized, clinical trial of 100 critically ill hospital patients at risk of pressure ulcers; included cost analysis | Of 49 patients in the Kin-air group, 8 developed pressure sores vs 39 of 49 patients using the standard bed With Kin-air, significantly fewer patients developed single, multiple, or severe pressure ulcers No significant difference was found regarding the resolution of pressure ulcers The air-suspension bed provided more clinically effective treatment less expensively through all scenarios in the sensitivity analysis |

