Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32496025›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2020

Critical biomechanical and clinical insights concerning tissue protection when positioning patients in the operating room: A scoping review.

Amit Gefen, Sue Creehan, Joyce Black

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04884737 (Decreasing Intraoperative Skin Damage in Prone Position Surgeries), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
22.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04884737 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Decreasing Intraoperative Skin Damage in Prone Position Surgeries

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2021 to 2023Enrolled107ConditionsPressure InjuryArmsMepilex Border Flex® (MBF) dressing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Amit GefenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0223-7218
Sue CreehanWound/Ostomy Program Team, VCU Health System, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Joyce BlackCollege of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Tel Aviv University · ILUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center · USVirginia Department of Health · US

Funding

Mölnlycke Health Care (Gothenburg, Sweden) N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An optimal position of the patient during operation may require a compromise between the best position for surgical access and the position a patient and his or her tissues can tolerate without sustaining injury. This scoping review analysed the existing, contemporary evidence regarding surgical positioning-related tissue damage risks, from both biomechanical and clinical perspectives, focusing on the challenges in preventing tissue damage in the constraining operating room environment, which does not allow repositioning and limits the use of dynamic or thick and soft support surfaces. Deep and multidisciplinary aetiological understanding is required for effective prevention of intraoperatively acquired tissue damage, primarily including pressure ulcers (injuries) and neural injuries. Lack of such understanding typically leads to misconceptions and increased risk to patients. This article therefore provides a comprehensive aetiological description concerning the types of potential tissue damage, vulnerable anatomical locations, the risk factors specific to the operative setting (eg, the effects of anaesthetics and instruments), the complex interactions between the tissue damage risk and the pathophysiology of the surgery itself (eg, the inflammatory response to the surgical incisions), risk assessments for surgical patients and their limitations, and available (including emerging) technologies for positioning. The present multidisciplinary and integrated approach, which holistically joins the bioengineering and clinical perspectives, is unique to this work and has not been taken before. Close collaboration between bioengineers and clinicians, such as demonstrated here, is required to revisit the design of operating tables, support surfaces for surgery, surgical instruments for patient stabilisation, and for surgical access. Each type of equipment and its combined use should be evaluated and improved where needed with regard to the two major threats to tissue health in the operative setting: pressure ulcers and neural damage.

Indexed as

Operating RoomsPressure UlcerFemaleHumansMaleRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsneural damagepressure injurypressure ulcersurgery

Identifiers

PMID32496025
PMCPMC7948884
OpenAlexW3028818855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.