Risk factors associated with heel pressure ulcer development in adult population: A systematic literature review.

AIMS: The main aim of this systematic literature review was to identify risk factors for development of heel pressure ulcers and quantify their effect. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers remain one of the key patient safety challenges across all health care settings and heels are the second most common site for developing pressure ulcers after the sacrum. DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review. METHODS: Data sources: Electronic databases were searched for studies published between 1809 to March 2020 using keywords, Medical Subject Headings, and other index terms, as well as combinations of these terms and appropriate synonyms. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Previous systematic literature reviews, cohort, case control and cross-sectional studies investigating risk factors for developing heel pressure ulcers. Only articles published in English were reviewed with no restrictions on date of publication. PARTICIPANTS: patients aged 18 years and above in any care setting. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the eligibility criteria and several potential risk factors were identified. However, eligible studies were mainly moderate to low quality except for three high quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of high quality evidence to identify risk factors associated with heel pressure ulcer development. Immobility, diabetes, vascular disease, impaired nutrition, perfusion issues, mechanical ventilation, surgery, and Braden subscales were identified as potential risk factors for developing heel pressure ulcers however, further well-designed studies are required to elucidate these factors. Other risk factors may also exist and require further investigation. PROSPERO ID: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews: CRD42017071459.

Wound photography for evaluation of surgical site infection and wound healing after lower limb trauma.

AIMS: Deep surgical site infection (SSI) is common after lower limb fracture. We compared the diagnosis of deep SSI using alternative methods of data collection and examined the agreement of clinical photography and in-person clinical assessment by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria after lower limb fracture surgery. METHODS: Data from two large, UK-based multicentre randomized controlled major trauma trials investigating SSI and wound healing after surgical repair of open lower limb fractures that could not be primarily closed (UK WOLLF), and surgical incisions for fractures that were primarily closed (UK WHiST), were examined. Trial interventions were standard wound care management and negative pressure wound therapy after initial surgical debridement. Wound outcomes were collected from 30 days to six weeks. We compared the level of agreement between wound photography and clinical assessment of CDC-defined SSI. We are also assessed the level of agreement between blinded independent assessors of the photographs. RESULTS: Rates of CDC-defined deep SSI were 7.6% (35/460) after open fracture and 6.3% (95/1519) after closed incisional repair. Photographs were obtained for 77% and 73% of WOLLF and WHiST cohorts respectively (all participants n = 1,478). Agreement between photographic-SSI and CDC-SSI was fair for open fracture wounds (83%; k = 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.42)) and for closed incisional wounds (88%; k = 0.29 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.37)) although the rate of photographically detected deep SSIs was twice as high as CDC-SSI (12% vs 6%). Agreement between different assessors for photographic-SSI (WOLLF 88%, k = 0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.72); WHiST 89%; k = 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69)); and wound healing was good (WOLLF 90%; k = 0.80 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.86); WHiST 87%; k = 0.57 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.64)). CONCLUSION: Although wound photography was feasible within the research context and inter-rater assessor agreement substantial, digital photographs used in isolation overestimated deep SSI rates, when compared to CDC criteria. Wound photography should not replace clinical assessment in pragmatic trials but may be useful for screening purposes where surgical infection outcomes are paramount. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1802-1808.