Cullum N, Deeks J, Sheldon T A, Song F, Fletcher A W
Centre for Evidence Based Nursing, Department of Health Studies, University of York, Genesis 6, York, UK, YO10 5DQ.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD001735. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001735.
To assess the effectiveness of pressure relieving beds, mattresses and cushions (support surfaces) in the prevention and treatment of pressure sores.
Searches of 19 databases, hand searching of journals, conference proceedings, and bibliographies.
Randomised controlled trials evaluating support surfaces for the prevention or treatment of pressure sores. There was no restriction on articles based on language or publication status.
Data extraction and assessment of study quality was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Trials with similar patients, comparisons, and outcomes were pooled. Where pooling was inappropriate, trials are discussed in a narrative review.
29 RCTs of support surfaces for pressure sore prevention were identified. Some high specification foam mattresses were more effective than 'standard' hospital foam mattresses in moderate-high risk patients. Pressure relieving mattresses in the operating theatre reduced the incidence of pressure sores post-operatively. The relative merits of alternating and constant low pressure, and of the different alternating pressure devices are unclear. Seat cushions and simple, constant low-pressure devices have not been adequately evaluated. Limited evidence suggests that low air loss beds reduce the incidence of pressure sores in intensive care.
6 RCTs of support surfaces for pressure sore treatment were identified. There is good evidence that air-fluidised and low air loss beds improve healing rates. Seat cushions have not been adequately evaluated. 2 RCTs evaluated surfaces for both prevention and treatment in the same trial.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: PREVENTION - There is good evidence of the effectiveness of high specification foam over standard hospital foam, and pressure relief in the operating theatre. Treatment - There is good evidence of the effectiveness of air-fluidised and low air loss devices as treatments. Overall, however, it is impossible to determine the most effective surface for either prevention or treatment.
评估减压床、床垫和坐垫(支撑面)在预防和治疗压疮方面的有效性。
检索19个数据库,手工检索期刊、会议论文集和参考文献目录。
评估用于预防或治疗压疮的支撑面的随机对照试验。对基于语言或出版状态的文章没有限制。
由两名评审员独立进行数据提取和研究质量评估。将具有相似患者、对照和结局的试验进行汇总。若汇总不合适,则在叙述性综述中对试验进行讨论。
确定了29项关于支撑面预防压疮的随机对照试验。在中高风险患者中,一些高规格泡沫床垫比“标准”医院泡沫床垫更有效。手术室中的减压床垫可降低术后压疮的发生率。交替式和持续低压力以及不同交替压力装置的相对优点尚不清楚。座垫和简单的持续低压力装置尚未得到充分评估。有限的证据表明,低气耗床可降低重症监护病房压疮的发生率。
确定了6项关于支撑面治疗压疮的随机对照试验。有充分证据表明,气悬浮床和低气耗床可提高愈合率。座垫尚未得到充分评估。有2项随机对照试验在同一试验中评估了支撑面的预防和治疗效果。
预防——有充分证据表明高规格泡沫优于标准医院泡沫以及手术室减压的有效性。治疗——有充分证据表明气悬浮装置和低气耗装置作为治疗手段的有效性。然而,总体而言,无法确定预防或治疗最有效的支撑面。