Clik here to view.
OWM_June2013_Lachenbruch.pdfClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_f1.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_f2.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_f3.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_f4.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_f5.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_kp.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_t1.1.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_t1.2.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_t2-3.jpgClik here to view.
owm_june2013_lachenbruch_t4.jpgIndex: Ostomy Wound Manage. 2013;59(6):38–47.
Abstract
Underpads and layers of linens are frequently placed under patients who are incontinent, have other moisture-related issues, and/or are immobile and cannot reposition independently. Many of these patients are also at risk for pressure ulcers and placed on pressure-redistribution surfaces. The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of linens and incontinence pads on interface pressure. Interface sacral pressures were measured (mm Hg) using a mannequin-like pelvic indenter that has pressure transducers integrated into the unit and is covered with a soft flesh-like elastomer. The indenter was loaded to simulate a median-weight male (80 kg/176 lb), and the testing was performed at head-of-bed (HOB) angles of 0˚, 30˚, and 45˚. Two different surfaces, a high performance low-air-loss support (LAL) surface and a standard foam support surface, were used and covered with a fitted sheet (FS) only or a combination of the FS and various incontinence pads and transfer sheets. Linen combinations typically used for relatively immobile patients (n = 4), moisture management (n = 4), and moisture management and immobility (n = 1) were tested, as was the heavy use of linens/pads (nine layers, n = 1).
