Date of Award

August 2024

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department

Biomedical Engineering

First Advisor

Pantea P. Tavakolian

Abstract

Pressure injuries are a significant problem in the health care system for patients undergoing long surgeries due to the prolonged time they spend on the surface without moving under the anesthesia effect [6]. This can lead to the occurrence of pressure injuries and can negatively affect patient outcomes and the healthcare system [3]. Current methods for preventing pressure injuries in the operating room include repositioning the patient, using sponges or small gel pads at pressure points, and the use of support surfaces [2]. There is not enough conclusive evidence that states that the use of support surfaces is effective in reducing pressure injuries, although, different types of support surfaces have been studied such as gel overlays and alternating pressure air mattresses [1]. With the complexity of the various factors from both the patient and the devices, there is not enough evidence that concludes the support surface’s efficacy in reducing pressure injuries. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness in terms of pressure distribution of three different support surfaces: foam, gel overlay and alternating pressure air mattress (APAM) support surface. To compare these support surfaces by looking at the pressure, a thin pressure mapping sensor mat was placed between the support surface and the participant’s sacral region for a period of 5 minutes after stabilizing with a sample size of 29 participants. Statistically significant results demonstrated the APAM support surface was higher in peak pressure, but was also effective in reducing the average pressure over a 25 x 25 region by 15.4% with respect to foam and 11.4% with respect to the gel overlay. In addition, other parameters such as Pixel Percentage (PP) was obtained to quantify the quality of offloading of the APAM support surface. PP is the percentage of area under three different thresholds (30, 20, and 10 mmHg), for the Foam surface, the PP under 30 mmHg was 6%, while for the Gel surface and the APAM support surfaces was 8.8% and 29.6%, respectively.

Download

Share

COinS