Does Sacrococcygeal Skeletal Morphology and Morphometry Influence Pressure Injury Formation in Adults?
Journal
Advances in skin & wound care
ISSN: 1538-8654
Titre abrégé: Adv Skin Wound Care
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100911021
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2022
01 Nov 2022
Historique:
entrez:
20
10
2022
pubmed:
21
10
2022
medline:
25
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To present a study that investigated sacrococcygeal skeletal structure as a possible nonmodifiable intrinsic risk factor for pressure injury and identify possible issues caused by its morphology. This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Recognize the background information the authors considered when planning and conducting their study of sacrococcygeal skeletal structure as a possible pressure injury risk factor.2. Identify the characteristics of the two groups of study participants.3. Choose the results of the study clinicians may consider when implementing evidence-based practice. To determine if sacrococcygeal skeletal morphology and morphometry characteristics were possible pressure injury (PI) intrinsic risk factors; determine the exact location of these PIs; and generate hypotheses and determine methodological considerations required for future larger studies. This case-control pilot study compared 30 patients who had an MRI scan—15 patients had a PI and 15 patients did not. Key sacrococcygeal morphology and morphometry parameters were assessed. On average, patients with PIs had less of a lumbosacral and sacrococcygeal angle and a greater sacral curvature and intercoccygeal angle than did patients without a PI. Patients with PIs had more variable coccyx types. Tissue and bone destruction precluded several measurements in some patients. The most common area of destruction was located distally. Sacrococcygeal measurements differed in patients with PIs, and PIs were predominately located distally. Authors recommend replicating this study on a larger scale because certain key attributes warrant further investigation to determine their influence on sacrococcygeal PIs. Sacrococcygeal morphology and morphometry parameters have not been previously studied as possible intrinsic risk factors for PIs; yet, this is the most common location for their occurrence. Knowledge regarding possible injury mechanisms due to the forces from overlying skeletal structures with respective tissue loading over the sacrococcygeal area has the potential to inform practice; preventive strategies; and equipment, products, and technology developed.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
To determine if sacrococcygeal skeletal morphology and morphometry characteristics were possible pressure injury (PI) intrinsic risk factors; determine the exact location of these PIs; and generate hypotheses and determine methodological considerations required for future larger studies. This case-control pilot study compared 30 patients who had an MRI scan—15 patients had a PI and 15 patients did not. Key sacrococcygeal morphology and morphometry parameters were assessed. On average, patients with PIs had less of a lumbosacral and sacrococcygeal angle and a greater sacral curvature and intercoccygeal angle than did patients without a PI. Patients with PIs had more variable coccyx types. Tissue and bone destruction precluded several measurements in some patients. The most common area of destruction was located distally. Sacrococcygeal measurements differed in patients with PIs, and PIs were predominately located distally. Authors recommend replicating this study on a larger scale because certain key attributes warrant further investigation to determine their influence on sacrococcygeal PIs. Sacrococcygeal morphology and morphometry parameters have not been previously studied as possible intrinsic risk factors for PIs; yet, this is the most common location for their occurrence. Knowledge regarding possible injury mechanisms due to the forces from overlying skeletal structures with respective tissue loading over the sacrococcygeal area has the potential to inform practice; preventive strategies; and equipment, products, and technology developed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36264750
doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000874180.84660.8b
pii: 00129334-202211000-00003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
586-595Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Coleman S, Gorecki C, Nelson EA, et al. Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50:974–1003.
Padula WV, Delarmente BA. The national cost of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in the United States. Int Wound J 2019;(December 2018):1–7.
Padula WV, Pronovost PJ, Makic MBF, et al. Value of hospital resources for effective pressure injury prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ Qual Saf 2019;28(2):132–41.
Edsberg LE, Black JM, Goldberg M, McNichol L, Moore L, Sieggreen M. Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure injury staging system. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2016;43:585–97.
Horn SD, Barrett RS, Fife CE, Thomson B. A predictive model for pressure ulcer outcome: the Wound Healing Index. Adv Skin Wound Care 2015;28:560–72.
Coleman S, Nelson EA, Keen J, et al. Developing a pressure ulcer risk factor minimum data set and risk assessment framework. J Adv Nurs 2014;70:2339–52.
Gould LJ, Bohn G, Bryant R, et al. Pressure ulcer summit 2018: an interdisciplinary approach to improve our understanding of the risk of pressure-induced tissue damage. Wound Repair Regen2019:1–12.
Bogie KM, Zhang GQ, Roggenkamp SK, et al. Individualized clinical practice guidelines for pressure injury management: development of an integrated multi-modal biomedical information resource. J Med Internet Res 2018;7(9):1–11.
Sprigle S, Sonenblum S. Visualizing tissue strain under the sacrum and coccyx in different supine postures: a case series. Adv Skin Wound Care 2019;32:264–71.
Gefen A, Brienza DM, Cuddigan J, Haesler E, Kottner J. Our contemporary understanding of the aetiology of pressure ulcers/pressure injuries. Int Wound J 2021;(APIl):1–13.
Gefen A. The biomechanics of heel ulcers. J Tissue Viability 2010;19(4):124–31.
Brienza D, Vallely J, Karg P, Akins J, Gefen A. An MRI investigation of the effects of user anatomy and wheelchair cushion type on tissue deformation. J Tissue Viability 2018;27(1):42–53.
Oomens CWJ, Broek M, Hemmes B, Bader DL. How does lateral tilting affect the internal strains in the sacral region of bed ridden patients? A contribution to pressure ulcer prevention. Clin Biomech 2016;35:7–13.
Akins JS, Vallely JJ, Karg PE, et al. Feasibility of freehand ultrasound to measure anatomical features associated with deep tissue injury risk. Med Eng Phys 2016;38:839–44.
Ohura T. External force and its clinical influence—the relationships between fundamental biomechanics and clinical findings. World Counc Enteros Ther J 2013;33(2):14–20.
Gefen A. The Compression Intensity Index: a practical anatomical estimate of the biomechanical risk for a deep tissue injury. Technol Heal Care 2008;16:141–9.
Sprigle SH, McNair D, Sonenblum S. Pressure ulcer risk factors in persons with mobility-related disabilities. Adv Skin Wound Care 2020;33:146–54.
Linder-Ganz E, Shabshin N, Itzchak Y, Yizhar Z, Siev-Ner I, Gefen A. Strains and stresses in sub-dermal tissues of the buttocks are greater in paraplegics than in healthy during sitting. J Biomech 2008;41:567–80.
Sonenblum SE, Measel M, Sprigle SH, Greenhalgh J, Cathcart JM. An exploratory analysis of the role of adipose characteristics in fulltime wheelchair users’ pressure injury history. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2021;9(November):1–10.
Hagisawa S, Shimada T, Arao H, Asada Y. Morphological architecture and distribution of blood capillaries and elastic fibres in the human skin. J Tissue Viability 2001;11(2):59–63.
Nanjo Y, Nakagami G, Kaitani T, et al. Relationship between morphological characteristics and etiology of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2011;38:404–12.
Santamaria N, Liu W, Gerdtz M, et al. The cost-benefit of using soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: a within-trial analysis of the Border Trial. Int Wound J 2015;12:344–50.
Wang W, Wu M, Liu Z, et al. Sacrum pubic incidence and sacrum pubic posterior angle: two morphologic radiological parameters in assessing pelvic sagittal alignment in human adults. Eur Spine J 2014;23:1427–32.
Abitbol MM. Evolution of the sacrum in hominoids. Am J Phys Anthropol 1987;74(1):65–81.
Miller AN, Routt MLC. Variations in sacral morphology and implications for iliosacral screw fixation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2012;20(1):8–16.
Okpala F. Measurement of lumbosacral angle in normal radiographs: a retrospective study in southeast Nigeria. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014;4:757–62.
Maduforo C, West O, Nwankwo N, Onwuchekwa R, Stephen UE, Ogbulu D. Study of the lumbosacral angles of males in Port Harcourt, South-South, Nigeria. Niger J Health 2012;12(1):22–4.
Troyanovich SJ, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Harrison DE. Radiographic mensuration characteristics of the sagittal lumbar spine from a normal population with a method to synthesize prior studies of lordosis. J Spinal Disord 1997;10:380–6.
Abitbol MM. Sacral curvature and supine posture. Am J Phys Anthropol 1989;80(3):379–89.
Przybylski P, Pankowicz M, Boćkowska A, et al. Evaluation of coccygeal bone variability, intercoccygeal and lumbo-sacral angles in asymptomatic patients in multislice computed tomography. Anat Sci Int 2013;88(4):204–11.
Yoon MG, Moon M, Park BK, Lee H, Kim D. Analysis of sacrococcygeal morphology in Koreans using computed tomography. Clin Orthop Surg 2016;8:412–9.
Marwan YA, Al-Saeed OM, Esmaeel AA, Kombar ORA, Bendary AM, Azeem MEA. Computed tomography-based morphologic and morphometric features of the coccyx among Arab adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39(20):E1210–9.
Lee JY, Gil YC, Shin KJ, et al. An anatomical and morphometric study of the coccyx using three-dimensional reconstruction. Anat Rec 2016;299:307–12.
Woon JTK, Stringer MD. Clinical anatomy of the coccyx: a systematic review. Clin Anat 2012;25(2):158–67.
Woon JTK, Perumal V, Maigne JY, Stringer MD. CT morphology and morphometry of the normal adult coccyx. Eur Spine J 2013;22:863–70.
Nathan ST, Fisher BE, Roberts CS. Coccydynia: a review of pathoanatomy, aetiology, treatment and outcome. J Bone Jt Surg 2010;92-B:1622–7.
Tetiker H, Kosar M, Cullu N, Canbek U, Otag I, Tastemur Y. MRI-based detailed evaluation of the anatomy of the human coccyx among Turkish adults. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20(2):136–42.
Woon JTK, Maigne J-Y, Perumal V, Stringer MD. Magnetic resonance imaging morphology and morphometry of the coccyx in coccydynia. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38(23):E1437–45.
Vrtovec T, Janssen MMA, Likar B, Castelein RM, Viergever MA, Pernuš F. Evaluation of pelvic morphology in the sagittal plane. Spine J 2013;13:1500–9.
Postacchini F, Massobrio M. Idiopathic coccygodynia. J Bone Jt Surg 1983;(1):1116–24.
Kerimoglu U, Dagoglu MG, Ergen FB. Intercoccygeal angle and type of coccyx in asymptomatic patients. Surg Radiol Anat 2007;29:683–7.
Hellems HK, Keates TE. Measurement of the normal lumbosacral angle. Am J Roentgenol 1971;113:642–5.
Bouten CVC, Breuls RGM, Peeters EAG, Oomens CWJ, Baaijens FPT. In vitro models to study compressive strain-induced muscle cell damage. Biorheology 2003;40(1-3):383–8.
Gawlitta D, Li W, Oomens CWJ, Baaijens FPT, Bader DL, Bouten CVC. The relative contributions of compression and hypoxia to development of muscle tissue damage: an in vitro study. Ann Biomed Eng 2007;35(2):273–84.
Sanada H, Nagakawa T, Yamamota M, Higashidani K, Tsuru H, Sugama J. The role of skin blood flow in pressure ulcer development during surgery. Adv Wound Care 1997;10:29–34.
Van Marum RJ, Meijer JH, Ribbe MW. The relationship between pressure ulcers and skin blood flow response after a local cold provocation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83(1):40–3.
Mayrovitz HN, Sims N, Taylor MC. Sacral skin blood perfusion: a factor in pressure ulcers?Ostomy Wound Manage 2002;48(6):34–8, 40-2.
Chai CY, Bader DL. The physiological response of skin tissues to alternating support pressures in able-bodied subjects. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;28:427–35.
Stojadinovic O, Minkiewicz J, Sawaya A, et al. Deep tissue injury in development of pressure ulcers: a decrease of inflammasome activation and changes in human skin morphology in response to aging and mechanical load. PLoS One 2013;8(8):1–9.
European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. The International Guideline. Haesler E, ed. EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA; 2019.
Hoogendoorn I, Reenalda J, Koopman BFJM, Rietman JS. The effect of pressure and shear on tissue viability of human skin in relation to the development of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. J Tissue Viability 2017;26(3):157–71.
Whitehead AL, Julious SA, Cooper CL, Campbell MJ. Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Stat Methods Med Res 2016;25:1057–73.
PASS. Pilot study sample size rules of thumb. In: PASS Sample Size Software. Kaysville, UT: NCSS, LLC; 2021:684-1-684–4.
Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat 2005;4:287–91.
Johanson GA, Brooks GP. Initial scale development: sample size for pilot studies. Educ Psychol Meas 2010;70:394–400.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Defining Adult Overweight and Obesity. Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 2020. www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html . Last accessed August 2, 2022.
Gefen A, Brienza DM, Cuddigan J, Haesler E, Kottner J. Our contemporary understanding of the aetiology of pressure ulcers/pressure injuries. Int Wound J 2022;19:692–704.
Scott RG, Thurman KM. Visual feedback of continuous bedside pressure mapping to optimize effective patient repositioning. Adv Wound Care 2014;3:376–82.
Gunningberg L, Sedin IM, Andersson S, Pingel R. Pressure mapping to prevent pressure ulcers in a hospital setting: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud 2017;72(APIl):53–9.
Yap TL, Kennerly SM, Ly K. Pressure injury prevention: outcomes and challenges to use of resident monitoring technology in a nursing home. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2019;46:207–13.