Support surfaces for intraoperative pressure injury prevention: systematic review with meta-analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.5279.3493Keywords:
Perioperative Nursing, Pressure Ulcer, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, Intraoperative Period, Equipment and SuppliesAbstract
Objective: to evaluate evidence on effectiveness support surfaces for pressure injury prevention in the intraoperative period. Method: systematic review. The search for primary studies was conducted in seven databases. The sample consisted of 10 studies. The synthesis of the results was carried out descriptively and through meta-analysis. Results: when comparing low-tech support surfaces with regular care (standard surgical table mattress), the meta-analysis showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the investigated interventions (Relative Risk = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.30-2.39). The Higgins inconsistency test indicated considerable heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 83%). The assessment of the certainty of the evidence was very low. When comparing high-tech and low-tech support surfaces, the meta-analysis showed that there is a statistically significant difference between the interventions studied, with high-tech being the most effective (Relative Risk = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.05-0.53). Heterogeneity can be classified as not important (I2 = 0%). The assessment of certainty of evidence was moderate. Conclusion: the use of high-tech support surfaces is an effective measure to prevent pressure injuries in the intraoperative period.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.
