Journal of Tissue Viability
Volume 20, Issue 1 , Pages 30-34, February 2011

Pressure relief, cold foam or static air? A single center, prospective, controlled randomized clinical trial in a Dutch nursing home

  • Martin van Leen

      Affiliations

    • Avoord Zorg & Wonen, Etten-Leur, Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
  • ,
  • Steven Hovius

      Affiliations

    • Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands
  • ,
  • Jacques Neyens

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Caphri/Dept. Health Care and Nursing Science, Maastricht University, Netherlands
  • ,
  • Ruud Halfens

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Caphri/Dept. Health Care and Nursing Science, Maastricht University, Netherlands
  • ,
  • Jos Schols

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Caphri/Dept. General Practice, Maastricht University, Netherlands

published online 01 June 2010.

Abstract 

Objective

At present, the evidence regarding the type of mattress that is the best for preventing pressure ulcers is not convincing. In a single center, prospective, controlled trial we compared a static air overlay mattress (no electric pump needed) on top of a cold foam mattress with a cold foam mattress alone on pressure ulcer incidence in nursing home residents.

Methods

83 Patients were included in the study with a score lower than 12 points on the Norton scale and no pressure ulcer at the start of the study. 42 Patients received a cold foam mattress and 41 patients received a static air overlay on top of that cold foam mattress. Out of bed we standardized the pressure reduction in sitting position by using a static air cushion in both groups. Patients were checked weekly in both groups for pressure ulcers.

Only when there were signs of developing a pressure ulcer grade 2 or higher, repositioning by our nursing home pressure ulcer protocol (PU protocol) was put into practice.

Results

Seven patients (17.1%) on a cold foam mattress and two (4.8%) on a static air mattress developed a pressure ulcer grade 2 or more. There was no difference regarding pressure ulcer incidence between patients with a high risk (Norton 5–8) and patients with a medium risk (Norton 9-12). In 5 out of 7 patients who developed a pressure ulcer on a foam mattress the ulcers showed no healing using our PU protocol. In the static air group all pressure ulcers healed by regular treatment according to our PU protocol.

Conclusions

In this study, static air overlay mattresses provided a better prevention than cold foam mattresses alone (4.8% versus 17.1%). The Norton scores of the patients in both groups did not change during the 6 month trial period. Our decision to use repositioning only when there were signs of a pressure ulcer seems to be acceptable when a static air overlay is in position. However, the score of 17.1% development (incidence) of pressure ulcers in the foam group may stress the need of repositioning when using only this type of mattress.

Keywords: Foam, Static, Ulcer, Prevention, Repositioning

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0965-206X(10)00037-9

doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2010.04.001

Journal of Tissue Viability
Volume 20, Issue 1 , Pages 30-34, February 2011