Reeves Barnaby, Pufulete Maria, Harris Jessica, Dumville Jo, Adderley Una, Burton Ashley, Burton Michael, Atkinson Ross, Clout Madeleine, Cullum Nicky, O'Connell Abby, O'Connor Louise, Palmer Stephen, Ridd Matthew, Rodrigues Jeremy, Wong Jason
Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2025 Sep;29(47):1-150. doi: 10.3310/DWKT1327.
Surgical reconstruction to close a severe pressure ulcer has not been evaluated.
We aimed to investigate the feasibility of research to evaluate surgical reconstruction for severe pressure ulcers by: systematically reviewing evidence about: the effectiveness of surgical reconstruction for severe pressure ulcers; the impact of pressure ulceration on health-related quality-of-life (review 2) surveying primary and secondary care healthcare professionals about surgical referrals of patients with severe pressure ulcers and severe pressure ulcer management, including surgical reconstruction describing patients with incident pressure ulcers and with severe pressure ulcers having surgical reconstruction comparing outcomes in patients with severe pressure ulcers having/not having surgical reconstruction seeking consensus about treatments and management strategies for severe pressure ulcers.
Systematic reviews; surveys; binary choice experiment; retrospective cohort studies using routine data; consensus meeting.
General practitioners; nurses; and surgeons managing pressure ulcers; people with incident pressure ulcers and hospitalised with severe pressure ulcers.
Surgical reconstruction.
No surgical reconstruction.
Surgical reconstruction, time to next admission with a severe pressure ulcer time to next admission, hospital stay, all-cause mortality, surgical reconstruction after discharge.
Review 1 included three studies comparing different surgical reconstruction techniques. None reported wound-free time. Recurrence occurred in ≈ 20%. Review 2 included three randomised controlled trials measuring health-related quality of life, but none observed benefits of interventions evaluated. Among primary care survey respondents, 54% did not know surgical reconstruction can treat severe pressure ulcers; > 50% had never referred a patient to a surgeon. Among nurses, 72% had considered surgical reconstruction for a severe pressure ulcer; 54% believed surgical reconstruction should be more available. Among surgeons, 39% had never offered surgical reconstruction and 52% offered surgical reconstruction to < 50%; 68% believed surgical reconstruction should be more available. Routine data recorded 367,884 admissions with severe pressure ulcer diagnoses in England over 7.5 years; surgical reconstructions were performed in at least 404 and at most 1018 admissions. Twenty English hospitals performed > 70% of the surgical reconstructions. Comparing surgical reconstruction ( = 325) versus no surgical reconstruction ( = 1474) patients, time to next admission with a severe pressure ulcer was longer in patients having surgical reconstruction (hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.03; = 0.07). Estimated pressure ulcer incidence in primary care was ≈ 5/10,000, but the true incidence was believed to be ≈ 7 times higher. Episodes of pressure ulcer care could not be identified. There was consensus about a referral pathway for severe pressure ulcer patients wanting surgical reconstruction, including both community-led and surgically led multidisciplinary team meetings, and about the influence of several patient and severe pressure ulcer characteristics on suitability for surgical reconstruction.
Surveys only considered factors one by one. Analyses of the Hospital Episode Statistics cohort depended on coding accuracy. For the comparison of surgical reconstruction and no surgical reconstruction, the no surgical reconstruction group had to be admitted. Routine data do not record wound healing outcomes. Primary care data underestimated pressure ulcer incidence; pressure ulcer care episodes could not be identified. The consensus meeting did not include surgeons. The COVID-19 pandemic caused delays, made team members unavailable and restricted face-to-face meetings.
There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of surgical reconstruction on health-related quality of life or wound healing for severe pressure ulcers. Too few procedures are carried out to enable a randomised controlled trial to be feasible.
We identified three areas: qualitative research on the acceptability of surgical reconstruction and the impact of a SPU on a patient's quality-of-life; a core outcome set for interventions to treat pressure ulcers; and economic modelling of surgical reconstruction cost-effectiveness.
This study is registered as PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019156436, 2019 CRD42019156450; ISRCTN13292620.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127850) and is published in full in ; Vol. 29, No. 47. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
尚未对用于闭合严重压疮的手术重建进行评估。
我们旨在通过以下方式研究评估严重压疮手术重建的研究可行性:系统回顾关于严重压疮手术重建有效性的证据;压疮对健康相关生活质量的影响(综述2);就严重压疮患者的手术转诊和严重压疮管理(包括手术重建)对初级和二级医疗保健专业人员进行调查;描述新发压疮患者和接受手术重建的严重压疮患者;比较接受/未接受手术重建的严重压疮患者的结局;就严重压疮的治疗和管理策略寻求共识。
系统综述;调查;二元选择实验;使用常规数据的回顾性队列研究;共识会议。
管理压疮的全科医生、护士和外科医生;新发压疮患者和因严重压疮住院的患者。
手术重建。
未进行手术重建。
手术重建、下次因严重压疮入院的时间、下次入院时间、住院时间、全因死亡率、出院后手术重建情况。
综述1纳入了三项比较不同手术重建技术的研究。均未报告无伤口时间。复发率约为20%。综述2纳入了三项测量健康相关生活质量的随机对照试验,但均未观察到所评估干预措施的益处。在初级保健调查受访者中,54%不知道手术重建可治疗严重压疮;超过50%从未将患者转诊给外科医生。在护士中,72%曾考虑对严重压疮进行手术重建;54%认为手术重建应更容易获得。在外科医生中,39%从未提供过手术重建,52%提供手术重建的比例不到50%;68%认为手术重建应更容易获得。常规数据记录了英格兰7.5年内367,884例诊断为严重压疮的入院病例;至少404例至最多1018例入院病例进行了手术重建。20家英国医院进行了超过70%的手术重建。比较接受手术重建的患者(n = 325)和未接受手术重建的患者(n = 1474),接受手术重建的患者下次因严重压疮入院的时间更长(风险比 = 0.79,95%置信区间0.61至1.03;P = 0.07)。初级保健中压疮的估计发病率约为5/10,000,但实际发病率据信约高7倍。无法确定压疮护理事件。对于希望进行手术重建的严重压疮患者的转诊途径达成了共识,包括社区主导和外科主导的多学科团队会议,以及若干患者和严重压疮特征对手术重建适用性的影响。
调查仅逐一考虑因素。医院事件统计队列分析依赖于编码准确性。对于手术重建与未手术重建的比较,未手术重建组必须入院。常规数据未记录伤口愈合结局。初级保健数据低估了压疮发病率;无法确定压疮护理事件。共识会议未包括外科医生。2019冠状病毒病大流行导致延误、团队成员无法参与以及限制了面对面会议。
没有足够证据确定手术重建对严重压疮的健康相关生活质量或伤口愈合的有效性。进行的手术数量太少,无法开展可行的随机对照试验。
我们确定了三个领域:关于手术重建可接受性以及严重压疮对患者生活质量影响的定性研究;治疗压疮干预措施的核心结局集;手术重建成本效益的经济模型。
本研究注册为PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019156436、2019 CRD42019156450;ISRCTN13292620。
本研究由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助(NIHR资助编号:NIHR127850),并全文发表于《;第29卷,第47期》。有关进一步的资助信息,请参见NIHR资助与奖项网站。