Journal of tissue viability · 2021
Anatomical variability of sub-epidermal moisture and its clinical implications.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jayabal Hemalatha, Bates-Jensen Barbara M, Abiakam Nkemjika S, Worsley Peter R, Bader Dan L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Technologies have been developed to monitor changes in dermal oedema, indicative of the early signs of pressure ulcers. However, there is limited information on the effects of regional differences in tissue morphology on these sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) parameters. This study was designed to investigate the absolute SEM readings across different anatomical sites using a commercial device.
METHODS: Twenty-four healthy participants were recruited to evaluate basal SEM values at different bony prominences, sampled by an experienced operator.
RESULTS: Distinct differences were observed in unloaded SEM values across different anatomical sites, notably between the upper and lower extremities. A high degree of variability was observed in particular sites, such as the heels. Moreover, SEM values at certain locations revealed significant relationships with age, BMI and gender (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The study revealed a high level of variability between and within anatomical sites in a healthy cohort of participants. Determining the changes in local skin and sub-dermal tissue status using SEM may require consideration of both site specific and individual demographic factors, with further research needed in cohorts at risk of pressure ulcers.
METHODS: Twenty-four healthy participants were recruited to evaluate basal SEM values at different bony prominences, sampled by an experienced operator.
RESULTS: Distinct differences were observed in unloaded SEM values across different anatomical sites, notably between the upper and lower extremities. A high degree of variability was observed in particular sites, such as the heels. Moreover, SEM values at certain locations revealed significant relationships with age, BMI and gender (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The study revealed a high level of variability between and within anatomical sites in a healthy cohort of participants. Determining the changes in local skin and sub-dermal tissue status using SEM may require consideration of both site specific and individual demographic factors, with further research needed in cohorts at risk of pressure ulcers.