International journal of nursing practice · 2026
Evaluating Real-Time Pressure-Sensing Monitoring Added to Standard Intraoperative Pressure Injury Prevention in High-Risk Surgical Patients: A Prospective Non-Randomised Comparative Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yan Heng, Zhang Xue, Liu Juan, Chen Xiaofeng, Chen Ting, Zhen Meijuan, Luo Binbin, He Qiaofang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing prolonged complex surgery are vulnerable to perioperative pressure injuries. The clinical value of adjunctive pressure-mapping systems in this setting remains uncertain.
AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate whether real-time intraoperative pressure-sensing monitoring, used in addition to standard pressure injury prevention care, was associated with differences in perioperative pressure injury incidence and related outcomes among adults undergoing prolonged high-risk surgery.
METHODS: A total of 250 adults undergoing prolonged cardiac, hepatobiliary, neurosurgical, or orthopaedic procedures were enrolled. Participants received either standard institutional pressure injury prevention care alone or standard care plus real-time pressure-sensing monitoring, with group allocation determined by device availability and operating-room scheduling logistics. The primary outcome was newly identified perioperative pressure injury through postoperative day 7. Secondary clinical outcomes were time from surgery to injury onset and hospital length of stay.
RESULTS: Pressure injuries occurred more frequently in the monitoring group than in the standard-care group (68.0% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.02), whereas injury severity and anatomical distribution were comparable. Time to documented injury was shorter, and postoperative pain scores and hospital stay were lower and shorter in the monitoring group. Interface-pressure data were available for the monitoring group only and are reported descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS: Real-time pressure-sensing monitoring, when added to standard preventive care, was associated with improved selected secondary outcomes but did not reduce pressure injury incidence and was associated with a higher injury frequency in this cohort. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the non-randomised design and baseline differences between groups.
AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate whether real-time intraoperative pressure-sensing monitoring, used in addition to standard pressure injury prevention care, was associated with differences in perioperative pressure injury incidence and related outcomes among adults undergoing prolonged high-risk surgery.
METHODS: A total of 250 adults undergoing prolonged cardiac, hepatobiliary, neurosurgical, or orthopaedic procedures were enrolled. Participants received either standard institutional pressure injury prevention care alone or standard care plus real-time pressure-sensing monitoring, with group allocation determined by device availability and operating-room scheduling logistics. The primary outcome was newly identified perioperative pressure injury through postoperative day 7. Secondary clinical outcomes were time from surgery to injury onset and hospital length of stay.
RESULTS: Pressure injuries occurred more frequently in the monitoring group than in the standard-care group (68.0% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.02), whereas injury severity and anatomical distribution were comparable. Time to documented injury was shorter, and postoperative pain scores and hospital stay were lower and shorter in the monitoring group. Interface-pressure data were available for the monitoring group only and are reported descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS: Real-time pressure-sensing monitoring, when added to standard preventive care, was associated with improved selected secondary outcomes but did not reduce pressure injury incidence and was associated with a higher injury frequency in this cohort. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the non-randomised design and baseline differences between groups.