Patel U H, Jones J T, Babbs C F, Bourland J D, Graber G P
Decubitus. 1993 May;6(3):28-31, 34, 36-7.
This study used two full-size pressure-sensitive mats to evaluate five patient support surfaces. The mats, containing 1,536 and 2,340 pressure measurement sites, respectively, made it possible to quantify the entire interface pressure distribution of each support surface. Measurements for groups of 64 and 32 subjects were obtained in supine positions of 0 degree, 30 degrees, at maximal head elevations (50 degrees-60 degrees), and at lateral recumbency. Several statistical descriptors were calculated to characterize the interface pressure distributions. The support surfaces tested included: a powered-air overlay (ACUCAIR Continuous-Air-flow System), a low-airloss bed (FLEXICAIR MC3 Low-Airloss Therapy), a continuous lateral-rotation low-airloss bed (RESTCUE Dynamic Air Therapy), an air-fluidized bed (CLINITRON II Air-Fluidized Therapy), and an integrated bed (prototype Advance 2000 Bed). An analysis of variance revealed that the interface pressure was significantly lower and weight-bearing area was significantly higher on the five surfaces, when compared to the standard hospital mattress.
本研究使用两个全尺寸压敏垫来评估五种患者支撑面。这两个垫子分别包含1536个和2340个压力测量点，从而能够量化每个支撑面的整个界面压力分布。对64名和32名受试者群体分别在0度、30度仰卧位、最大头部抬高（50度至60度）以及侧卧位进行了测量。计算了几个统计描述符来表征界面压力分布。所测试的支撑面包括：动力空气覆盖物（ACUCAIR连续气流系统）、低气耗床（FLEXICAIR MC3低气耗疗法）、连续侧旋低气耗床（RESTCUE动态空气疗法）、气悬浮床（CLINITRON II气悬浮疗法）以及一体化床（原型Advance 2000床）。方差分析显示，与标准医院床垫相比，这五个支撑面上的界面压力显著更低，而负重面积显著更高。
