Pressure-relieving devices for treating heel pressure ulcers

被引:9
作者
McGinnis, Elizabeth [1 ]
Stubbs, Nikki [2 ]
机构
[1] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[2] St Marys Hosp, Leeds Community Hlth Care NHS Trust, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
来源
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS | 2014年 / 02期
关键词
Bedding and Linens; Beds; Heel; Foot Ulcer [etiology; therapy; Orthotic Devices; Patient Dropouts; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Aged; 80 and over; Humans; AIR-FLUIDIZED BEDS; CONVENTIONAL THERAPY; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; SORES; PREVENTION; ULCERATION; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD005485.pub3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or shear. Pressure redistribution devices are used as part of the treatment to reduce the pressure on the ulcer. The anatomy of the heel and the susceptibility of the foot to vascular disease mean that pressure ulcers located there require a particular approach to pressure relief. Objectives To determine the effects of pressure-relieving interventions for treating pressure ulcers on the heel. Search methods In May 2013, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); and EBSCO CINAHL. No language or publication date restrictions were applied. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of pressure-relieving devices on the healing of pressure ulcers of the heel. Participants were treated in any care setting. Interventions were any pressure-relieving devices including mattresses and specific heel devices. Data collection and analysis Both review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion. Both review authors independently extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias. Main results In our original review, only one study met the inclusion criteria. This study (141 participants) compared two mattress systems; however, losses to follow up were too great to permit reliable conclusions. We did not find any further relevant studies during this first update. Authors' conclusions This review identified one small study at moderate to high risk of bias which provided no evidence to inform practice. More research is needed.
引用
收藏
页数:33
相关论文
共 106 条
[1]  
Allman RM, 1997, CLIN GERIATR MED, V13, P421
[2]   AIR-FLUIDIZED BEDS OR CONVENTIONAL THERAPY FOR PRESSURE SORES - A RANDOMIZED TRIAL [J].
ALLMAN, RM ;
WALKER, JM ;
HART, MK ;
LAPRADE, CA ;
NOEL, LB ;
SMITH, CR .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1987, 107 (05) :641-648
[3]  
ALLMAN RM, 1987, CLIN RES, V35, pA728
[4]  
ANDREWS J, 1989, CARE SCI PRACTICE, V7, P72
[5]  
[Anonymous], SEARCH FILTERS
[6]  
[Anonymous], BRIT J NURSING
[7]  
[Anonymous], REV CLIN GERONTOLOGY
[8]  
[Anonymous], ADV WOUND CARE
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2010, SURGERY, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SURG.2009.06.030
[10]  
[Anonymous], 1994, J TISSUE VIABILITY, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0965-206X(14)80124-1