Lauren Walden, Oleg Teleten, Lisa Peterson, Aubrey Yao, Holly Kirkland-Kyhn
{"title":"手术室中的枕骨压力对比图。","authors":"Lauren Walden, Oleg Teleten, Lisa Peterson, Aubrey Yao, Holly Kirkland-Kyhn","doi":"10.25270/wmp.23005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospital-acquired occipital pressure injuries are a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative setting.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To find the occipital cushion/pillow with the lowest measured peak pressures and the highest measured surface area using pressure mapping technology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A quality improvement project involving 3 operating room staff volunteers was conducted using pressure mapping. Five different pillows were tested based on what the study location commonly used and had available. The pillows included: standard pillow with pillowcase, non-powered fluidized positioner, medium-sized (17 × 17 × 1.5 inches) static seat cushion placed under the shoulders and head, pediatric-sized (13 × 13 × 2 inches) static air cushion placed under the head, and foam donut.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The non-powered fluidized positioner had the highest average pressure and peak pressure for all 3 volunteers. The medium static air seat cushion had the lowest average and peak pressures for 2 out of 3 volunteers. None of the head cushions consistently demonstrated a larger surface area of pressure distribution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The medium-sized static air seat cushion, placed under the shoulders and head, demonstrated the most favorable pressure redistribution properties. The non-powered fluidized positioner demonstrated the least favorable pressure redistribution properties.</p>","PeriodicalId":23741,"journal":{"name":"Wound management & prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative occipital pressure mapping in the operating room.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Walden, Oleg Teleten, Lisa Peterson, Aubrey Yao, Holly Kirkland-Kyhn\",\"doi\":\"10.25270/wmp.23005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospital-acquired occipital pressure injuries are a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative setting.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To find the occipital cushion/pillow with the lowest measured peak pressures and the highest measured surface area using pressure mapping technology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A quality improvement project involving 3 operating room staff volunteers was conducted using pressure mapping. Five different pillows were tested based on what the study location commonly used and had available. The pillows included: standard pillow with pillowcase, non-powered fluidized positioner, medium-sized (17 × 17 × 1.5 inches) static seat cushion placed under the shoulders and head, pediatric-sized (13 × 13 × 2 inches) static air cushion placed under the head, and foam donut.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The non-powered fluidized positioner had the highest average pressure and peak pressure for all 3 volunteers. The medium static air seat cushion had the lowest average and peak pressures for 2 out of 3 volunteers. None of the head cushions consistently demonstrated a larger surface area of pressure distribution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The medium-sized static air seat cushion, placed under the shoulders and head, demonstrated the most favorable pressure redistribution properties. The non-powered fluidized positioner demonstrated the least favorable pressure redistribution properties.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wound management & prevention\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wound management & prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25270/wmp.23005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound management & prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/wmp.23005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative occipital pressure mapping in the operating room.
Background: Hospital-acquired occipital pressure injuries are a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative setting.
Purpose: To find the occipital cushion/pillow with the lowest measured peak pressures and the highest measured surface area using pressure mapping technology.
Materials and methods: A quality improvement project involving 3 operating room staff volunteers was conducted using pressure mapping. Five different pillows were tested based on what the study location commonly used and had available. The pillows included: standard pillow with pillowcase, non-powered fluidized positioner, medium-sized (17 × 17 × 1.5 inches) static seat cushion placed under the shoulders and head, pediatric-sized (13 × 13 × 2 inches) static air cushion placed under the head, and foam donut.
Results: The non-powered fluidized positioner had the highest average pressure and peak pressure for all 3 volunteers. The medium static air seat cushion had the lowest average and peak pressures for 2 out of 3 volunteers. None of the head cushions consistently demonstrated a larger surface area of pressure distribution.
Conclusions: The medium-sized static air seat cushion, placed under the shoulders and head, demonstrated the most favorable pressure redistribution properties. The non-powered fluidized positioner demonstrated the least favorable pressure redistribution properties.