FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

A systematic review of the impact of compression therapy on quality of life and pain among people with a venous leg ulcer

Abstract

Aim

To gain a greater understanding of how compression therapy affects quality of life, this systematic review appraised existing published studies measuring the impact of compression therapy on health quality of life (HRQoL), and pain, among people with venous leg ulcers (VLU).

Method

Five databases were searched, and two authors extracted data and appraised the quality of selected papers using the RevMan risk of bias tool. Due to heterogeneity in the types of compression and instruments used to evaluate HRQoL, meta-analysis was not appropriate; thus, a narrative synthesis of findings was undertaken.

Results

Ten studies were included, 9 RCTs and one before-after study. The studies employed nine different HRQoL tools to measure the impact of a variety of compression therapy systems, with or without an additional exercise programme, versus other compression systems or usual care, and the results are mixed. With the use of the Cardiff Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule, the SF-8 and the SF-12, study authors found no differences in QoL scores between the study groups. This is similar to one study using QUALYs (Iglesias et al., 2004). Conversely, for studies using EuroQol-5D, VEINES-QOL, SF-36 and CIVIQ-20 differences in QoL scores between the study groups were noted, in favour of the study intervention groups. Two further studies using QUALYs found results that favoured a two-layer cohesive compression bandage and the TLCCB group, respectively. Results for the five studies that assessed pain are also mixed, with one study finding no difference between study groups, one finding that pain increased over the study period and three studies finding that pain reduced in the intervention groups. All studies were assessed as being at risk of bias in one or more domains.

Conclusion

Results were varied, reflecting uncertainty in determining the impact of compression therapy on quality of life and pain among people with a venous leg ulcer. The heterogeneity of the compression systems and the measures used to evaluate HRQoL make it a challenge to interpret the overall evidence. Further studies should strive for homogeneity in design, interventions and comparators to enhance both internal and external validity.

The correlation between sub‐epidermal moisture measurement and other early indicators of pressure ulcer development—A prospective cohort observational study. Part 1. The correlation between sub‐epidermal moisture measurement and ultrasound

Abstract

The correlation between sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) and other early indicators of pressure ulcer (PU) development is yet to be determined. This three-part series aims to bridge this knowledge gap, through investigating SEM and its correlation with evidence-based technologies and assessments. This article focuses on the correlation between SEM and ultrasound. A prospective cohort observational study was undertaken between February and November 2021. Patients undergoing three surgery types were consecutively enrolled to the study following informed consent. Assessments were performed prior to and following surgery for 3 days at the sacrum, both heels and a control site, using a SEM scanner and high-frequency ultrasound scanner (5–15 MHz). Spearman's rank (r s ) explored the correlation between SEM and ultrasound. A total of 60 participants were included; 50% were male with a mean age of 58 years (±13.46). A statistically significant low to moderately positive correlation was observed between SEM and ultrasound across all anatomical sites (r s range = 0.39–0.54, p < 0.05). The only exception was a correlation between SEM and ultrasound on day 0 at the right heel (r s  = 0.23, p = 0.09). These results indicate that SEM and ultrasound agreed in the presence of injury; however, SEM was able to identify abnormalities before ultrasound.

❌