A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Face tissue pressures in prone positioning: a comparison of 3 pillows. | LitMetric

Study Design: Pilot Study.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare face tissue pressures for 3 different prone head positioners in healthy, conscious individuals in the prone position.

Summary Of Background Data: The incidence of intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers has been reported to range from 12% to 66%; healthcare literature lacks information about lesions specific to the face. Risk factors include prolonged surgical times, immobility, inadequate positioning and/or padding, use of warming devices, and skin maceration. Spine procedures are often lengthy, and frequently require patients to be in the prone position. Thus, face pressure lesions have been observed after complex spine procedures. A variety of prone head positioners exist to reduce face tissue pressures encountered during prone procedures. The objective of this study was to compare face tissue pressures for 3 different prone head positioners in healthy, conscious individuals in the prone position.

Methods: Fifteen subjects tested 3 prone face positioners, and face-pillow interface pressures for the forehead and chin were recorded over 15 minutes. The devices included a disposable polyurethane foam prone head positioner (VOSS Medical Product; San Antonio, TX); a face plate and mirror with a disposable foam prone head positioner (ProneView Protective Helmet System, Dupaco Inc; Oceanside, CA); a neoprene "dry flotation" device from ROHO (The ROHO Group; Belleville, IL).

Results: At all time points for the forehead and chin, the ProneView positioner and the ROHO neoprene pillow demonstrated significantly lower face-pillow interface pressures than the VOSS polyurethane pillow.

Conclusions: An alternative to the current commercially available prone positioners exists as the ROHO neoprene pillow resulted in significantly lower forehead and chin pressures than the VOSS pillow and lower chin pressures than the ProneView pillow at all time points. A prospective, randomized clinical trial is needed to identify face-pillow interface pressures in anesthetized patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31815c6d12DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prone head
20
face tissue
16
tissue pressures
16
prone
12
pressures prone
12
head positioners
12
face-pillow interface
12
interface pressures
12
forehead chin
12
pressures
9

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!