NewsWound digest Pressure Ulcers 3


Improving understanding of the role of friction forces and pressure forces in pressure ulcer aetiology and classification


Readability Relevance to daily practice Novelty factor


n This study was undertaken to explore the empirical relationships between friction forces and category II pressure ulcers and between pressure forces and categories III and IV pressure ulcers


n Methods involved a secondary analysis of data collected from 161 hospitals in Germany and 28,299 adult hospital patients using Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) analysis


n Results indicate, that there is a strong relationship between frictional forces and superficial skin lesions and between pressure and deeper categories III and IV pressure ulcers


n The authors conclude that because superficial ulcers seem to be primarily caused by frictional forces they are therefore excluded by definition from the current European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP) and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP ) pressure ulcer definition and classification


n Importantly these findings have implications for the interventions used for pressure ulcer prevention.


Lahmann NA, Kottner , J Relation between pressure, friction and pressure ulcer categories: A secondary data analysis of hospital patients using CHAID methods. Int J Nurs Stud, 2011 in press.


Diabetic foot ulcers 4


Identifying the 'at-risk' foot in clinical practice


Readability Relevance to daily practice Novelty factor


n This study was undertaken to identify which individual risk factors were most accurate at predicting foot ulceration, and whether an integrated system, rather than individual criteria, is a better screening tool


n Data regarding foot and general diabetes indicators were recorded on the regional diabetes electronic register. Follow-up data on foot ulceration were taken from the same register, along with multidisciplinary foot clinic, community and podiatry paper records.


51 Wounds International Vol 2 | Issue 4 | ©Wounds International 2011


Data were linked to assess which risk factors best predicted future foot ulceration


n A total of 3719 people (44% female; mean age, 59±15 years) had foot risk scores recorded: 851 (22.9%) were insensitive to monofilaments; 629 (17.2%) had both pulses absent; 184 (4.9%) had a previous ulcer


n Using multivariate analysis, the strongest predictors of foot ulceration were: previous ulcer, insulin treatment, insensitivity to monofilaments, structural abnormality, proteinuria and retinopathy


n The sensitivity (and specificity) of predicting foot ulceration was 52% (99%) for previous ulcer, 61% (81%) for insensitivity to monofilaments, 75% (89%) for 'high-risk' on an integrated score, and 91% (61%) for a combination of high and moderate risk


n It was concluded that integrated foot risk scores are more sensitive than individual criteria in predicting foot ulceration and are likely to be more efficient screening tools.


Leese GP, Cochrane L, Mackie AD et al. Measuring the accuracy of different ways to identify the ‘at-risk’ foot in routine clinical practice. Diabet Med 2011; 28: 747–54.


5


Importance of limb preservation in people with diabetes


Readability Relevance to daily practice Novelty factor


n This retrospective study aimed to determine outcomes in people with diabetes undergoing proximal forefoot/ midfoot (PF/M) amputations


n Records extracted from a limb-salvage database were split into two groups: 88 people (92 limbs) in the PF/M amputation group (Group 1); 25 people in the below-knee amputation group (Group 2)


n At two years in Group 1, 80% were still alive, 73% of limbs remained intact and 64% were ambulatory; in Group 2, 52% had died and 64% of survivors were ambulating with a prosthetic limb


n It was concluded that aggressive efforts at limb salvage with PF/M amputation procedures should be considered prior to higher level amputation.


Evans KK, Attinger CE, Al-Attar A et al. The importance of limb preservation in the diabetic population. J Diabetes Complications 2011; 25: 227–31.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53