Conectar
To examine the consistency among three wound measurement methods in assessing pressure injury surface area and to compare manual depth measurement with three-dimensional wound measurement.
Methodological and comparative study.
This study was conducted between 2022 and 2024 at a university hospital, involving 125 pressure injuries. The wound surface area was measured using three different methods, and depth was measured using a sterile cotton swab and three dimensional wound measurement method. STARD reporting guidelines were followed.
This study found a statistically significant, strong positive correlation among the three wound measurement methods. However, a significant difference was detected, with digital planimetry yielding higher values than other methods. No significant difference was observed between depth measurement methods.
Digital wound measurement methods are fast, non-contact, accurate and reliable for assessing pressure injury surface area. Additionally, three dimensional wound measurement serves as a potential aseptic, non-contact alternative to traditional depth measurement, making it a valuable tool in clinical settings.
Future advancements in wound measurement should focus on artificial intelligence-driven wound boundary detection and improved automation for more consistent and reliable measurements.
The study addressed the absence of a universally accepted ‘gold standard’ for wound measurement. Findings showed that digital planimetry provided the highest measurements, while three-dimensional wound measurement and imitoMeasure demonstrated accuracy, reliability and efficiency. This research will impact wound care specialists and healthcare institutions by improving pressure injury measurement and promoting standardised digital methods in clinical practice.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
NCT06559657
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the point prevalence and associated risk factors of medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPI) in intensive care patients in Turkey.
MDRPI remain a clinical problem that has garnered the attention of healthcare professionals.
This study used a cross-sectional design and was conducted over a single day in all intensive care units.
Data were collected through face-to-face interviews, observation, skin examination and detailed diagnosis of MDRPI development and influencing factors. Presence of pressure injuries on the skin in the areas where the patient's medical device was placed was defined. The study was reported according to the STROBE declaration.
MDRPI developed in 65 out of 200 patients included in the study (32.5%). The most frequent locations were on the face (71%). The MDRPIs were commonly associated with nasogastric tube (29.2%), endotracheal tube (18.5%) and CPAP mask (15.4%). A significant proportion of these injuries were mucosal (53.8%, n = 35). The majority of the skin pressure injuries were classified as Stage II (18.5%, n = 12). The risk increased 14 times in patients who were hospitalised for 9–16 days and 13 times in those who received mechanical ventilator support.
The study findings suggest that MDRPI developed in approximately one of three patients hospitalised in the intensive care unit, and the length of hospital stay and mechanical ventilator support were important determining risk factors. The high prevalence of MDRPI may indicate inadequate nursing care quality. Therefore, it is recommended that nurses be aware of risk factors and evaluate the suitability and safety of medical devices.
No patient or public contribution was involved in this study.
FreshRSS