"A-PePSI LIGhT" Assessment Score to Predict Pressure Sore Impaired Healing Late Recurrence, Immobility, Greater Surface, Inhibited Thrombocytes.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Blood Platelets
/ physiology
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Predictive Value of Tests
Pressure Ulcer
/ physiopathology
Prognosis
Recurrence
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Wound Healing
Young Adult
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Feb 2022
01 Feb 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
14
12
2021
medline:
18
3
2022
entrez:
13
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Complication rates of up to 46 percent are reported following pressure sore surgery. Pressure sore patients often exhibit ineffective postoperative wound healing despite tension-free flap coverage, necessitating surgical revision and prolonged hospitalization. Rather than pressure sore recurrence, such impaired healing reflects a failed progress through the physiologic stages of the normal wound-healing cascade. The principal objective of the study reported here was to elucidate potentially modifiable inherent variables that predict predisposition to impaired healing and to provide a tool for identifying cases at risk for complicated early postoperative recovery following pressure sore reconstruction. A retrospective chart review of late-stage (stage 3 or higher) sacral and ischial pressure sore patients who underwent flap reconstruction from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify key patient and operative factors predictive of impaired healing. Furthermore, the Assessment Score to Predict Pressure Sore Impaired Healing (A-PePSI) was established based on the identified risk factors. In a cohort of 121 patients, 36 percent exhibited impaired healing. Of these, 34 patients suffered from dehiscences, necessitating surgical revision. Statistically significant risk factors comprising late recurrence (OR, 3.8), immobility (OR, 12.4), greater surface (>5 cm diameter; OR, 7.3), and inhibited thrombocytes (aspirin monotherapy; OR, 5.7) were combined to formulate a prognostic scoring system (A-PePSI LIGhT). The A-PePSI LIGhT score serves as a prognostic instrument for assessing individual risk for impaired healing in pressure sore patients. Preoperative risk stratification supports rational decision-making regarding operative candidacy, allows evidence-based patient counseling, and supports the implementation of individualized treatment protocols. . Risk, III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Complication rates of up to 46 percent are reported following pressure sore surgery. Pressure sore patients often exhibit ineffective postoperative wound healing despite tension-free flap coverage, necessitating surgical revision and prolonged hospitalization. Rather than pressure sore recurrence, such impaired healing reflects a failed progress through the physiologic stages of the normal wound-healing cascade. The principal objective of the study reported here was to elucidate potentially modifiable inherent variables that predict predisposition to impaired healing and to provide a tool for identifying cases at risk for complicated early postoperative recovery following pressure sore reconstruction.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective chart review of late-stage (stage 3 or higher) sacral and ischial pressure sore patients who underwent flap reconstruction from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify key patient and operative factors predictive of impaired healing. Furthermore, the Assessment Score to Predict Pressure Sore Impaired Healing (A-PePSI) was established based on the identified risk factors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In a cohort of 121 patients, 36 percent exhibited impaired healing. Of these, 34 patients suffered from dehiscences, necessitating surgical revision. Statistically significant risk factors comprising late recurrence (OR, 3.8), immobility (OR, 12.4), greater surface (>5 cm diameter; OR, 7.3), and inhibited thrombocytes (aspirin monotherapy; OR, 5.7) were combined to formulate a prognostic scoring system (A-PePSI LIGhT).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The A-PePSI LIGhT score serves as a prognostic instrument for assessing individual risk for impaired healing in pressure sore patients. Preoperative risk stratification supports rational decision-making regarding operative candidacy, allows evidence-based patient counseling, and supports the implementation of individualized treatment protocols. .
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Risk, III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34898527
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008766
pii: 00006534-202202000-00033
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
483-493Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
Anders J, Heinemann A, Leffmann C, Leutenegger M, Pröfener F, von Renteln-Kruse W. Decubitus ulcers: Pathophysiology and primary prevention. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107:371–381; quiz 382.
Larson DL, Hudak KA, Waring WP, Orr MR, Simonelic K. Protocol management of late-stage pressure ulcers: A 5-year retrospective study of 101 consecutive patients with 179 ulcers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:897–904.
Keys KA, Daniali LN, Warner KJ, Mathes DW. Multivariate predictors of failure after flap coverage of pressure ulcers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1725–1734.
Foster RD, Anthony JP, Mathes SJ, Hoffman WY, Young D, Eshima I. Flap selection as a determinant of success in pressure sore coverage. Arch Surg. 1997;132:868–873.
Biglari B, Büchler A, Reitzel T, et al. A retrospective study on flap complications after pressure ulcer surgery in spinal cord-injured patients. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:80–83.
Disa JJ, Carlton JM, Goldberg NH. Efficacy of operative cure in pressure sore patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89:272–278.
Mustoe TA, O’Shaughnessy K, Kloeters O. Chronic wound pathogenesis and current treatment strategies: A unifying hypothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(Suppl):35S–41S.
Sameem M, Au M, Wood T, Farrokhyar F, Mahoney J. A systematic review of complication and recurrence rates of musculocutaneous, fasciocutaneous, and perforator-based flaps for treatment of pressure sores. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:67e–77e.
Jugun K, Richard JC, Lipsky BA, et al. Factors associated with treatment failure of infected pressure sores. Ann Surg. 2016;264:399–403.
Middleton JW, Lim K, Taylor L, Soden R, Rutkowski S. Patterns of morbidity and rehospitalisation following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2004;42:359–367.
Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012799.
Gillespie BM, Chaboyer WP, McInnes E, Kent B, Whitty JA, Thalib L. Repositioning for pressure ulcer prevention in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4:CD009958.
Suissa D, Danino A, Nikolis A. Negative-pressure therapy versus standard wound care: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:498e–503e.
Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Kaatz S, et al.; BRIDGE Investigators. Perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:823–833.
Lawrence WT. Physiology of the acute wound. Clin Plast Surg. 1998;25:321–340.
Toon CD, Lusuku C, Ramamoorthy R, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS. Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD010259.
Šimundić AM. Measures of diagnostic accuracy: Basic definitions. EJIFCC. 2009;19:203–211.
Bamba R, Madden JJ, Hoffman AN, et al. Flap reconstruction for pressure ulcers: An outcomes analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1187.
Moore ZE, Patton D. Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD006471.
Langer G, Fink A. Nutritional interventions for preventing and treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6:CD003216.
Lindgren M, Unosson M, Fredrikson M, Ek AC. Immobility: A major risk factor for development of pressure ulcers among adult hospitalized patients. A prospective study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18:57–64.
Boyko TV, Longaker MT, Yang GP. Review of the current management of pressure ulcers. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2018;7:57–67.
Guihan M, Garber SL, Bombardier CH, Goldstein B, Holmes SA, Cao L. Predictors of pressure ulcer recurrence in veterans with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2008;31:551–559.
Appell HJ. Muscular atrophy following immobilization: A review. Sports Med. 1990;10:42–58.
Zhao JC, Zhang BR, Shi K, et al. Couple-kissing flaps for successful repair of severe sacral pressure ulcers in frail elderly patients. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:285.
Ochs RF, Horn SD, van Rijswijk L, Pietsch C, Smout RJ. Comparison of air-fluidized therapy with other support surfaces used to treat pressure ulcers in nursing home residents. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2005;51:38–68.
Allman RM, Walker JM, Hart MK, Laprade CA, Noel LB, Smith CR. Air-fluidized beds or conventional therapy for pressure sores: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:641–648.
Bhattacharya S, Mishra RK. Pressure ulcers: Current understanding and newer modalities of treatment. Indian J Plast Surg. 2015;48:4–16.
Reddy M. Pressure ulcers. BMJ Clin Evid. 2011;2011:1901.
Grant CA, Dempsey GA, Lowe D, Brown JS, Vaughan ED, Rogers SN. APACHE II scoring for the prediction of immediate surgical complications in head and neck cancer patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:1751–1758.
Jakubietz RG, Jakubietz DF, Zahn R, Schmidt K, Meffert RH, Jakubietz MG. Reconstruction of pressure sores with perforator-based propeller flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2011;27:195–198.
Kosaka M, Wada Y, Kamiishi H. Combination of bilateral perforator flaps and fasciocutaneous flaps for coverage of large, expansive sacral pressure ulcer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1884–1885.
Wang Y, He G, Tang H, et al. Aspirin inhibits inflammation and scar formation in the injury tendon healing through regulating JNK/STAT-3 signalling pathway. Cell Prolif. 2019;52:e12650.
Rodrigues M, Kosaric N, Bonham CA, Gurtner GC. Wound healing: A cellular perspective. Physiol Rev. 2019;99:665–706.
Etulain J. Platelets in wound healing and regenerative medicine. Platelets. 2018;29:556–568.
Jones CM, Rothermel AT, Mackay DR. Evidence-based medicine: Wound management. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:201e–216e.
Darby IA, Weller CD. Aspirin treatment for chronic wounds: Potential beneficial and inhibitory effects. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25:7–12.
Guo S, Dipietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010;89:219–229.
Kaushal M, Gopalan Kutty N, Mallikarjuna Rao C. Wound healing activity of NOE-aspirin: A pre-clinical study. Nitric Oxide. 2007;16:150–156.
dos Santos JS, Monte-Alto-Costa A. Female, but not male, mice show delayed cutaneous wound healing following aspirin administration. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2013;40:90–96.
Kämpfer H, Schmidt R, Geisslinger G, Pfeilschifter J, Frank S. Wound inflammation in diabetic ob/ob mice: Functional coupling of prostaglandin biosynthesis to cyclooxygenase-1 activity in diabetes-impaired wound healing. Diabetes. 2005;54:1543–1551.
Dasa O, Pepine CJ, Pearson TA. Aspirin in primary prevention: What changed? A critical appraisal of current evidence. Am J Cardiol. 2021;141:38–48.