An Observational, Prospective Cohort Pilot Study to Compare the Use of Subepidermal Moisture Measurements Versus Ultrasound and Visual Skin Assessments for Early Detection of Pressure Injury.
{"title":"An Observational, Prospective Cohort Pilot Study to Compare the Use of Subepidermal Moisture Measurements Versus Ultrasound and Visual Skin Assessments for Early Detection of Pressure Injury.","authors":"A. Gefen, S. Gershon","doi":"10.25270/OWM.2018.9.1227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pressure ulcers (PUs) are detected by visual skin assessment (VSA). Evidence suggests ultrasound (US) and subepidermal moisture (SEM) scanner technology can measure tissue damage before it is visible.\n\n\nPURPOSE\nA pilot study was conducted to evaluate consistency between SEM and US examinations of suspected deep tissue injury (sDTI).\n\n\nMETHOD\nUsing an observational, prospective cohort study design, patients >55 years of age were recruited. VSA, SEM, and US assessments were performed daily for a minimum of 3 and maximum of 10 consecutive days following enrollment. US results were considered indicative of sDTI if hypoechoic lesions were present. SEM readings were considered abnormal when ∆ ≥0.6 was noted for at least 2 consecutive days. Boolean analysis was utilized to systematically determine consistency between US and SEM where sDTI was the clinical judgment.\n\n\nRESULTS\nAmong the 15 participants (10 women, mean age 74 ± 10.9 years), there was consistent agreement between SEM and US when sDTIs existed. For 1 patient who developed a heel sDTI during the study, SEM readings were abnormal 2 days before VSA indicated tissue damage and 3 days before the appearance of a hypoechoic lesion in the US.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nUS and SEM results were similar, and in an evolving sDTI case, SEM detected a lesion earlier than US.","PeriodicalId":54656,"journal":{"name":"Ostomy Wound Management","volume":"64 9 1","pages":"12-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"41","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ostomy Wound Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/OWM.2018.9.1227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41
Abstract
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are detected by visual skin assessment (VSA). Evidence suggests ultrasound (US) and subepidermal moisture (SEM) scanner technology can measure tissue damage before it is visible.
PURPOSE
A pilot study was conducted to evaluate consistency between SEM and US examinations of suspected deep tissue injury (sDTI).
METHOD
Using an observational, prospective cohort study design, patients >55 years of age were recruited. VSA, SEM, and US assessments were performed daily for a minimum of 3 and maximum of 10 consecutive days following enrollment. US results were considered indicative of sDTI if hypoechoic lesions were present. SEM readings were considered abnormal when ∆ ≥0.6 was noted for at least 2 consecutive days. Boolean analysis was utilized to systematically determine consistency between US and SEM where sDTI was the clinical judgment.
RESULTS
Among the 15 participants (10 women, mean age 74 ± 10.9 years), there was consistent agreement between SEM and US when sDTIs existed. For 1 patient who developed a heel sDTI during the study, SEM readings were abnormal 2 days before VSA indicated tissue damage and 3 days before the appearance of a hypoechoic lesion in the US.
CONCLUSION
US and SEM results were similar, and in an evolving sDTI case, SEM detected a lesion earlier than US.
期刊介绍:
Ostomy/Wound Management was founded in March of 1980 as "Ostomy Management." In 1985, this small journal dramatically expanded its content and readership by embracing the overlapping disciplines of ostomy care, wound care, incontinence care, and related skin and nutritional issues and became the premier journal of its kind. Ostomy/Wound Managements" readers include healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines. Today, our readers benefit from contemporary and comprehensive review and research papers that are practical, clinically oriented, and cutting edge. Each published article undergoes a rigorous double-blind peer review by members of both the Editorial Advisory Board and the Ad-Hoc Peer Review Panel.