Pressure Distribution Comparison among Standard Seating Surfaces and Strap Seating System
- John Damiao
- Anthony Blair
- Nicole Martinez
- Rachel Reyes
- Brenda Mahon
Abstract
AIMS: Pressure injuries (PIs) are common issues that can be minimized through the use of pressure-redistributing support surfaces. Cushions that provide immersion and contour are considered the most effective for pressure relief; however, others are readily available on the market. The aim of this study is to determine how a wheelchair equipped with Comfort Tension Seating®(CTS) compares to standard sling seating, foam, and a high-end pressure redistributing contoured cushion.
MATERIALS & METHODS: Pressure redistribution qualities as measured through peak pressure index (PPI) using pressure mapping technology were gathered on four different seating surfaces -standard sling seat, CTS, and two cushion types flat cross-section foam, contoured-cushion, and CTS. Twenty non-disabled participants trialed each cushion for five minutes each. The methods of this study are described and outcomes analyzed by comparing the PPI and comfort of the four cushions.
RESULTS: A Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and related samples Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance by ranks (ANOVA) was calculated. The results show that there is a significant difference between each of the cushions in comfort and pressure redistribution. There was a statistically significant difference in mean PPI between the three groups in which the CTS performed better than the sling and flat cross-section foam, but not quite as good as the high-end contoured cushion (p <.001).
CONCLUSION: While not as optimal as the contoured M2 foam cushion, the CTS seating surface appears to provide superior pressure-redistributing performance compared to sling and flat cross-section foam. This suggests that the CTS could be used as a support surface for many applications, except for individuals with high-level PI risk, without using tilt and recline features.
- Full Text:
PDF
- DOI:10.5539/gjhs.v15n7p35
Journal Metrics
- h-index: 88 (The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)
- i10-index: 464
- WJCI (2022): 0.897
- WJCI Impact Factor: 0.306
Index
- Academic Journals Database
- BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine)
- CNKI Scholar
- Copyright Clearance Center
- DBH
- EBSCOhost
- Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek (EZB)
- Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)
- Genamics JournalSeek
- GHJournalSearch
- Google Scholar
- Harvard Library
- Index Copernicus
- Jisc Library Hub Discover
- JournalTOCs
- LIVIVO (ZB MED)
- MIAR
- Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD)
- PKP Open Archives Harvester
- Publons
- Qualis/CAPES
- ResearchGate
- ROAD
- SafetyLit
- Scilit
- SHERPA/RoMEO
- Standard Periodical Directory
- Stanford Libraries
- The Keepers Registry
- UCR Library
- UniCat
- UoB Library
- WJCI Report
- WorldCat
- Zeitschriften Daten Bank (ZDB)
Contact
- Erica GreyEditorial Assistant
- gjhs@ccsenet.org