Pressure Distribution Comparison among Standard Seating Surfaces and Strap Seating System

AIMS: Pressure injuries (PIs) are common issues that can be minimized through the use of pressure-redistributing support surfaces. Cushions that provide immersion and contour are considered the most effective for pressure relief; however, others are readily available on the market. The aim of this study is to determine how a wheelchair equipped with Comfort Tension Seating®(CTS) compares to standard sling seating, foam, and a high-end pressure redistributing contoured cushion. MATERIALS & METHODS: Pressure redistribution qualities as measured through peak pressure index (PPI) using pressure mapping technology were gathered on four different seating surfaces -standard sling seat, CTS, and two cushion types flat cross-section foam, contoured-cushion, and CTS. Twenty non-disabled participants trialed each cushion for five minutes each. The methods of this study are described and outcomes analyzed by comparing the PPI and comfort of the four cushions. RESULTS: A Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and related samples Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance by ranks (ANOVA) was calculated. The results show that there is a significant difference between each of the cushions in comfort and pressure redistribution. There was a statistically significant difference in mean PPI between the three groups in which the CTS performed better than the sling and flat cross-section foam, but not quite as good as the high-end contoured cushion (p <.001). CONCLUSION: While not as optimal as the contoured M2 foam cushion, the CTS seating surface appears to provide superior pressure-redistributing performance compared to sling and flat cross-section foam. This suggests that the CTS could be used as a support surface for many applications, except for individuals with high-level PI risk, without using tilt and recline features.