View clinical trials related to Pressure Ulcer.
Filter by:This is a prospective, multi-center, randomized, controlled clinical study Of PuraPly® AM and standard of care (SOC) compared to SOC alone for the management of Stage II-IV pressure ulcers located in the gluteal, ischial, hip, sacral, coccygeal, and trochanteric, malleolus, or heel area.
To evaluate the impact of a high strength lysine-based adhesive (TissuGlu® Surgical Adhesive) on complications and revision rates in large flap surgery for decubitus repair.
The goal of this module project is to establish the efficacy of a portable sensor and app-based biofeedback technology system for promoting effective pressure relief behaviors and reducing risk of pressure ulcer development among wheelchair users. In collaboration with the participating SCIMS centers, the investigators will conduct a randomized clinical trial of education and goal setting alone compared to education and goal setting combined with the biofeedback system (SENSIMAT®) that is commercially available.
Patients who have at least one stage 3 or 4 PI and are admitted to a participating treating facility will be candidates for study enrollment. Patients must provide written informed consent. Standard care for their admitted condition will be provided for the patients except for support surface selection, laboratory blood tests, PI measurement(s) by the 3-D camera measurement tool, and added pain and patient satisfaction assessments. Clinical assessments will be recorded weekly as described below. Patients will be followed until discharge from the LTACH or until 1) they require a different mattress for their admitted condition; or 2) reach a maximum of 12 weeks in the LTACH. At study discontinuation, a clinical general assessment of the quality of improvement of the PIs will be recorded.
Pressure ulcers (PU) represent a major health issue because of their high incidence and of their important consequences. There is an important risk of pressure ulcer acquisition for ICU patient with acute organ failure. Specific risk factors identified in ICU are immobility, which accentuates the effects of friction and shears, as well as mechanical ventilation and the use of vasopressors. A repositioning schedule is a guideline for pressure ulcer prevention, but repositioning frequency remains unknown. Adaptation of the repositioning schedule to pressure ulcer risk assessment using Braden scale should decrease emergence of pressure ulcer. This could limit their important consequences for ICU patients which add to their brittle clinical condition (infection, increased length of stay, mortality…).
A monocentric cluster-crossover design has been used in this study to test the effectiveness of a 3-in-1 perineal care washcloth versus standard of care (e.g., water and pH neutral soap) to prevent and treat pressure ulcers in ICUs.
The objective of this study is to determine if silicone adhesive multilayer foam dressings applied to the sacrum, heels and greater trochanter in addition to standard prevention reduce pressure ulcer incidence category II, III, IV, Unstageable and Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) compared to standard pressure ulcer prevention alone, in at risk hospitalised patients. In particular, this trial extends previous trial results obtained in ICU setting. Therefore, only a maximum of 25% of patients will be recruited from ICU settings. The hypothesis is: 'The use of silicone adhesive multilayer foam dressings as adjuvant prophylactic therapy for pressure ulcer prevention is more effective in reducing pressure ulcer category II, III, IV, Unstageable, and Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) incidence rate on sacrum, heels and greater trochanter, compared to standard pressure ulcer prevention alone.' The null hypothesis is: 'The use of silicone adhesive multilayer foam dressings as adjuvant prophylactic therapy for pressure ulcer prevention is not more effective in reducing pressure ulcer category II, III, IV, Unstageable, and Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) incidence rate on sacrum, heels and greater trochanter, compared to standard pressure ulcer prevention alone.
The enrolled children would be randomized to one of the groups 'study group' or 'Honey dressing group' or 'Group I' (honey dressing containing Active Leptospermum Honey also known as Manuka honey would be used), changed every alternate day for a maximum period of upto 8 weeks (in cases of stage IV ulcers) or till healthy granulation tissue appears, whichever is earlier and 'control group' or 'Standard treatment group ' or 'Group 2' (paraffin gauze is applied after application of povidone iodine). Randomization will be performed as per protocol. Primary outcome will be reduction in time to healing of any stage of pressure ulcer and secondary outcomes will be treatment failure and new onset infection of ulcer.
Pressure injuries are a serious health care problem and affect millions of people. Most pressure injuries are avoidable with the application of best practices and with the use of appropriate technology. Support surfaces are a crucial component of any comprehensive prevention strategy. Decades of research have produced moderate and low levels of evidence upon which to base clinical decisions concerning how and when to apply support surfaces for prevention. This knowledge has been periodically assessed and assembled into clinical practice guidelines. There is good evidence that the combined group of active and reactive support surfaces is effective in preventing pressure injuries and that high-specification reactive foam surfaces are effective in preventing pressure injuries. But there is insufficient evidence that low air loss surfaces are more or less effective than other types of surfaces. Yet, low air loss surfaces are used for more than 17% of patients in acute care at high risk of developing pressure injuries. The study is designed to determine if and when low air loss is effective in preventing pressure injuries, and what level of heat and moisture control performance is necessary for prevention effectiveness. The primary aim of the project is to compare the effectiveness of reactive support surfaces with low air loss to reactive support surfaces without low air loss in preventing pressure injuries for people with moisture risk factors in acute care. Support surfaces are currently marketed and identified by practitioners based on device features (e.g., low air loss, air fluidization, alternating pressure), categories (powered, non-powered, reactive, and active) and components (e.g., foam, gel, fluid). The critical performance characteristics of low air loss systems are moisture, humidity and temperature management. Preliminary work has revealed that these characteristics vary widely among different low air loss products. A secondary aim of the proposed study is to explore associations between support surface performance characteristics and pressure injury outcomes to identify which low air loss performance characteristics and what level of those performance characteristics are necessary for the technology to be effective. Successful completion of this project will fill a critical gap in evidence regarding the effectiveness of support surfaces with low air loss, and could influence a shift in the way support surfaces are characterized away from the current feature-based paradigm toward a more clinically relevant and generalizable performance-based paradigm.
The purpose of this study is to test if the newly-developed Dabir alternating pressure (AP) overlay could be beneficial to preventing skin damage during daily activities, such as lying in bed. Specifically, the study is being done to test if the Dabir AP overlay could be used to increase skin tolerance when lying in bed for an extended period of time (40 minutes), including reducing pressure and increasing skin blood flow (amount of blood supply to oxygen and nutrients to skin) as compared to regular operation room (OR) overlay. A total of 20 participants with spinal cord injury will be recruited. Subjects will undergo study procedures including: AP and Control protocols. Skin blood flow and interface pressure will be collected non-invasively (from outside the body) during both protocols. During AP protocols, subject will be asked to lie on side (10 min), on back on AP overlay (40 min), on side (30 min), on back on OR overlay (40 min), and on side (10 min). During Control protocol, subject will be asked to lie on side (10 min), on back on OR overlay (40 min), and on side (10 min). Subject will then proceed to vascular control measures, including: non-invasive skin blood flow and tissue oxygen measurements with mild heating and electrical stimulation. Findings from this study will help us understand the effectiveness of the AP overlay on skin blood flow response during prolonged lying in bed.