Support surfaces for intraoperative pressure injury prevention: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Carolina Beatriz Cunha Prado, Elaine Alves Silva Machado, Karina Dal Sasso Mendes and 2 others
PMID 34755774WHAT IT FOUND
In surgery, low-tech surfaces did not clearly reduce pressure injuries compared with standard mattresses.
High-tech powered surfaces were more effective than low-tech surfaces.
Key findings
01Low-tech surfaces did not clearly prevent more pressure injuries than standard surgical table mattresses. In the pooled comparison, pressure injuries occurred in 37 of 290 patients with low-tech surfaces and 53 of 301 with standard care.
02Powered high-tech surfaces were more effective than low-tech surfaces. Pressure injuries occurred in 3 of 270 patients with high-tech surfaces and 23 of 265 with low-tech surfaces.
03The low-tech versus standard mattress result was very uncertain because the included studies varied widely.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
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
The review included a small number of randomized trials, and the low-tech versus standard mattress evidence was very uncertain because studies varied widely. Some randomized trials were at high risk of bias because outcome assessors were not blinded, and a trial reported outcomes selectively. Gray literature was not searched, so relevant studies may have been missed. The high-tech versus low-tech evidence was only moderate certainty because some trials were at high risk of bias.
Declared interests
The supplied text does not include a conflicts of interest or funding declaration.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that low-tech surfaces are ineffective. The low-tech versus standard mattress comparison was very uncertain, and an included trial found a dry viscoelastic polymer pad more effective than standard care.