Comparing the interface pressure redistribution after applying three different types of cushions: differences according to cushion type.
Ji-Su Park, Sang-Heon Lee
PMID 28210058WHAT IT FOUND
Memory foam gave the lowest total sitting pressure, honeycomb the next lowest.
Air did not lower total pressure more than firm surface, but had the highest thigh pressures.
Key findings
01Memory foam produced the lowest total mean sitting pressure, honeycomb produced the second lowest, and air was not significantly different from sitting without a cushion.
02Hip interface pressure variables differed among cushions, and the firm surface produced the highest hip pressures.
03All thigh interface pressure variables were lowest on memory foam and highest on air.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Participants were healthy adults who could sit by themselves and had no neurological disease, so results may not apply to people who need cushions for pressure relief. The study measured interface pressure only, not pressure ulcers or other patient-important outcomes. The cushions were tested in a set order, and participants were not told which cushion they sat on, so order and partial blinding may matter. The air cushion pressure level may not have been standardized, which could affect its readings.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that memory foam or honeycomb cushions prevent pressure ulcers. The study measured sitting pressure in healthy adults without neurological disease and did not report ulcer outcomes.