Maklebust J, Siggreen M Y, Mondoux L
Ostomy Wound Manage. 1988 Winter;21:32, 36-41, 44.
The number of support surfaces marketed as pressure relieving devices has escalated during recent years and objective measures are needed to evaluate those that are effective. The purpose of this study was to compare the pressure relief capabilities of a special three-layered plastic air mattress (Sof.Care Bed Cushion--Gaymar), an air-fluidized bed (Clinitron--Support Systems International) and a standard hospital mattress. Sixty-four volunteers served as their own control as they were rotated onto the three sleep surfaces. Tissue interface pressure measurements were taken over bony prominences where pressure ulcers are most likely to occur: the sacrum, the greater trochanter of the femur and the heels. A one-way analysis of variance was computed for interface measurement scores by type of surface and a statistically significant difference was found among the three surfaces. A Newman-Keuls test was employed to compare the mean scores between two groups at a time. Both the Sof.Care Cushion and the Clinitron Bed differed significantly from the hospital mattress in the ability to relieve pressure. There was no statistical difference between the Sof.Care Cushion and the Clinitron Bed in the ability to relieve pressure over the sacrum, trochanter, or heels. However tissue pressure readings under the heels were greater than 32 mm Hg on both the Clinitron and Sof.Care surfaces. The data from this study, by looking at a larger sample supports our prior findings.
近年来,作为减压设备销售的支撑面数量不断增加,因此需要客观的测量方法来评估那些有效的支撑面。本研究的目的是比较一种特殊的三层塑料气垫床(Sof.Care床褥——Gaymar公司)、气悬浮床(Clinitron——国际支撑系统公司)和标准医院床垫的减压能力。64名志愿者在三种睡眠表面上轮流躺卧,以自身作为对照。在最易发生压疮的骨隆突部位进行组织界面压力测量:骶骨、股骨大转子和足跟。根据表面类型对界面测量分数进行单向方差分析,发现三种表面之间存在统计学上的显著差异。采用纽曼-基尔斯检验每次比较两组的平均分数。Sof.Care床褥和气悬浮床在减压能力方面均与医院床垫存在显著差异。Sof.Care床褥和气悬浮床在骶骨、转子或足跟部位的减压能力上没有统计学差异。然而,在Clinitron和气悬浮床表面,足跟下的组织压力读数均大于32毫米汞柱。通过观察更大的样本,本研究的数据支持了我们之前的发现。