Positron emission tomography study of effects of two pressure-relieving support surfaces on pressure ulcer development. (2nd January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Soppi, Esa; Knuuti, Juhani; Kalliokoski, Kari
• Is Part Of: Journal of wound care. Volume 30:Number 1(2021)
• Page Start: 54
• Page End: 62
• Publication Date: 2021-01-02
• Subjects: deformation -- hypoxia -- positron emission tomography -- pressure ulcer -- skin temperature -- subepidermal moisture -- wound care -- wound healing -- wounds; Wounds and injuries -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Wound healing -- Periodicals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2021.30.1.54
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0969-0700

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To study the pathophysiological cascade of pressure ulcer (PU) development consisting of tissue deformation, inflammation and hypoxia. Method: In this crossover study, deformation was measured with computerised tomography (CT) linked with contact area reflecting immersion and envelopment. Inflammation and hypoxia were measured using subepidermal moisture (SEM), skin temperature and tissue perfusion with positron emission tomography. These variables were investigated under 90 minutes of pressure exposure caused by two functionally different support surfaces—a regular foam mattress and a minimum pressure air (MPA) mattress. Results: A total of eight healthy volunteers took part in the study. There was major tissue deformation when the participants lay on a foam mattress while the tissues retained their original shape on the MPA mattress (p<0.0001). During the pressure exposure, the skin temperature increased significantly on both support surfaces but the final temperature on the foam mattress was about 1oC higher than on the MPA mattress (p<0.0001). SEM increased on both support surfaces compared with an unexposed reference site, but the cause may be different between the two support surfaces. Tissue perfusion was lowest in the skin followed by subcutaneous tissues and highest in the muscles. The pressure exposure did not cause any substantial changes in perfusion. The results showed that tissue deformation was more pronounced, the support surface contact area (envelopment), was smaller and the skin temperature higher on the foam mattress than on the MPA mattress, without significant differences in tissue perfusion. Conclusion: In this study, the MPA mattress support surface had mechanobiological properties that counteracted tissue deformation and thereby may prevent PUs.