Influência das superfícies de apoio na distribuição da pressão de interface corporal durante o posicionamento cirúrgico

• Autor(a) principal: Oliveira, Karoline Faria de
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Pires, Patrícia da Silva, De-Mattia, Ana Lúcia, Barichello, Elizabeth, Galvão, Cristina Maria, Araújo, Cleudmar Amaral de, Barbosa, Maria Helena
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng; spa; por
• Título da fonte: Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/rlae/article/view/156325
• topic: Patient Positioning; Patient Safety; Perioperative Care; Perioperative Nursing; Perioperative Period; Pressure Ulcer; Posicionamiento del Paciente; Seguridad del Paciente; Atención Perioperativa; Enfermería Perioperatoria; Periodo Perioperatorio; Úlcera por Presión; Posicionamento do Paciente; Segurança do Paciente; Assistência Perioperatória; Enfermagem Perioperatória; Período Perioperatório; Lesão por Pressão

Objective: to evaluate the interface pressure (IP) of support surfaces (SSs) on bony prominences. Method: a quasi-experimental study with repeated measures on each SS. Twenty healthy adult volunteers participated in the study. The participants were placed in the supine position on a standard operating table for evaluation of IP on the bony prominences of the occipital, subscapular, sacral, and calcaneal regions using sensors. Seven evaluations were performed for each bony prominence: one on a standard operating table, and the others on tables containing SSs made of viscoelastic polymer, soft foam, or sealed foam. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used to analyze the data. Results: the mean IP was higher on the viscoelastic polymer-based SS compared to the other SSs (p<0.001). The mean IP was relatively lower on the density-33 sealed foam and density-18 soft foam. In addition, this variable was comparatively higher in the sacral region (42.90 mmHg) and the calcaneal region (15.35 mmHg). Conclusion: IP was relatively lower on foam-based SSs, especially on density-18 soft foam and density-33 sealed foam. Nonetheless, IP was not reduced on the viscoelastic polymer SS compared to the control SS.