Subepidermal moisture surrounding pressure ulcers in persons with a spinal cord injury: A pilot study
Subepidermal moisture surrounding pressure ulcers in persons with a spinal cord injury: A pilot study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1179/2045772313y.0000000193
复制
发表时间：
2014-11-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Mayrovitz, Harvey N.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harrow, Jeffrey John;Mayrovitz, Harvey N.
目的：量化脊髓损伤 (SCI) 中 III 期和 IV 期压疮 (PrUs) 周围表皮下水分 (SEM) 的非侵入性方法的特征。设计：采用重复测量分析的前瞻性、单次就诊、单评估者观察性研究。方法：设置一个 VA SCI 中心的住院单位。参与者：16 名 SCI 受试者的方便样本，其中 SCI 期 III 期或 IV 期 PrUs 超过骶骨干预措施：使用 MoistureMeter-D 进行测量，这是一种使用 300 MHz 电磁波的手持设备。结果测量：介电常数，一个随水分含量而增加的无量纲数。每个受试者都有一个 PrU 位点和一个对照位点。在每个部位、完整皮肤上、围绕该部位成角度间隔的四个点处进行测量，一式三份。结果：(1) 短期、单一评估者相对误差为 2.5%。 (2) 顺序效应：64 个测量组中有 55 个测量组的第一读数高于第二读数。顺序效应对于对照位点显着（P < 0.0001），但对于 PrU 位点则不显着。 (3) 角度效应：PrU位点SEM随角度变化(P < 0.01)； 12点钟位置最高，6点钟位置最低。 (4) 区分 PrU 和完整皮肤的能力：PrU 部位的 SEM 比对照部位高 9.0%（P < 0.05）。 (5)位点效应：SEM在骶骨位置比坐骨位置对照高20%(P<0.005)。结论：SEM区分PrUs和完整皮肤。未来的研究设计必须考虑顺序、角度和场地对此措施的影响。这些信息将为设计者提供 SEM 在 PrU 治疗中的未来研究的信息。
Objective: Characterization of a non-invasive method of quantifying subepidermal moisture (SEM) surrounding stages III and IV pressure ulcers (PrUs) in spinal cord injury (SCI).Design: Prospective, single-visit, single-rater, observational study, using repeated-measures analysis.Method: Setting-inpatient units of one VA SCI Center.Participants: Convenience sample of 16 subjects with SCI with stage III or IV PrUs over sacrum or ischium.Interventions: Measurement with the MoistureMeter-D, a hand-held device using 300 MHz electromagnetic waves.Outcome measures: Dielectric constant, a dimensionless number which increases with the moisture content. Each subject had a PrU site and a control site. Measurements were made at each site, on intact skin, at four points spaced angularly around the site, in triplicate.Results: (1) Short-term, single-rater relative error was 2.5%. (2) Order effect: first readings were higher than second readings in 55 of 64 measurement sets. Order effect was significant for control sites (P < 0.0001) but not for PrU sites. (3) Angular effect: SEM varied by angle at the PrU sites (P < 0.01); 12 o'clock position the highest and 6 o'clock the lowest. (4) Ability to differentiate PrUs from intact skin: SEM at PrU sites was greater by 9.0% than control sites (P < 0.05). (5) Site effect: SEM was higher at sacral locations than ischial at control sites by 20% (P < 0.005).Conclusions: SEM differentiates PrUs from intact skin. Future study designs must take into account order, angular, and site effects on this measure. This information will inform designers of future studies of SEM in healing of PrUs.