Pressure ulcer (PU) is one of the most common occurrences in bedridden subjects. Despite the standard of care, there is a huge challenge in monitoring immobile subjects in all the bodily pressure points. This increases the chance of onset of PU which in turn increases the expenditure for treating and managing the PU. Hence, we made a study on the biological and physiological factors that are responsible for the formation of PU and also on various techniques used for diagnosis. Thus, we have summarised the efficacy of various advanced diagnostic procedures with their limitations. Though there are advanced imaging techniques, risk assessment tools based on the visual inspection are widely followed in hospitals. Based on our observation, we here have identified three major areas; one being the development of mathematical modeling, the second is towards the development of non-invasive devices and finally to automate cot facility. We have also provided possible suggestions as to solutions that could be useful to researchers and for society. Thus, this review covers the present difficulty faced by bedridden subjects and respective care-takers along with the knowledge gap and a few suggestions as to future scope.
GefenABrienzaDMCuddiganJHaeslerEKottnerJ. Our contemporary understanding of the aetiology of pressure ulcers/pressure injuries. Int Wound J. 2021:1‐13. doi:10.1111/iwj.13667
4.
LandiFOnderGRussoABernabeiR. Pressure ulcer and mortality in frail elderly people living in community. Arch GerontolGeriatr.2007;44(Suppl 1):217‐223. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2007.01.030.
5.
AyelloEABradenB. How and why to do pressure ulcer risk assessment. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2002;15(3):125‐133. doi:10.1097/00129334-200205000-00008.
6.
CharalambousCKouloriAVasilopoulosARoupaZ. Evaluation of the validity and reliability of the waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment scale. Med Arch. 2018;72(2):141‐144. doi:10.5455/medarh.2018.72.141-144.
7.
TheeranutANinbanphotSLimpawattanaP. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2021;26(1):48‐54. doi:10.1111/nicc.12511.
8.
European Society of Radiology (ESR); European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS). Patient safety in medical imaging: a joint paper of the European society of radiology (ESR) and the European federation of radiographer societies (EFRS). Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1):45. Published 2019 Apr 5. doi:10.1186/s13244-019-0721-y.
9.
GuihanMBates-JensonBMChunSParachuriRChinASMcCreathH. Assessing the feasibility of subepidermal moisture to predict erythema and stage 1 pressure ulcers in persons with spinal cord injury: a pilot study. J Spinal Cord Med. 2012;35(1):46–52. doi:10.1179/204577211X13209212104141.
10.
GefenARossG. The subepidermal moisture scanner: the technology explained. J Wound Care. 2020;29(Sup2c):S10‐S16. doi:10.12968/jowc.2020.29.Sup2c.S10.
11.
RossGGefenA. Assessment of sub-epidermal moisture by direct measurement of tissue biocapacitance. Med Eng Phys. 2019;73:92‐99. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.07.011.
12.
Lawton S. Skin 1: the structure and functions of the skin. Nurs Times [online]. 2019;115(12):30–33.
13.
Britannica E. The editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. de la Enciclopedia Británica. 2019.
14.
ReddyMGillSSRochonPA. Preventing pressure ulcers: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(8):974‐984. doi:10.1001/jama.296.8.974.
15.
KottnerJGefenALahmannN. Weight and pressure ulcer occurrence: a secondary data analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48(11):1339‐1348. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.04.011.
16.
BhattacharyaSMishraRK. Pressure ulcers: current understanding and newer modalities of treatment. Indian J Plast Surg. 2015;48(1):4‐16. doi:10.4103/0970-0358.155260.
17.
de SouzaDMSantosVL. Risk factors for pressure ulcer development in institutionalized elderly. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2007;15(5):958‐964. doi:10.1590/s0104-11692007000500012.
18.
PawlaczykMLelonkiewiczMWieczorowskiM. Age-dependent biomechanical properties of the skin. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2013;30(5):302‐306. doi:10.5114/pdia.2013.38359.
19.
FergusonMCookARimmaschHBenderSVossA. Pressure ulcer management: the importance of nutrition. MedsurgNurs. 2000;9(4):163‐177.
20.
PosthauerMEBanksMDornerBScholsJM. The role of nutrition for pressure ulcer management: national pressure ulcer advisory panel, European pressure ulcer advisory panel, and pan pacific pressure injury alliance white paper. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2015;28(4):175‐190. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000461911.31139.62.
21.
Pancorbo-HidalgoPLGarcia-FernandezFPLopez-MedinaIMAlvarez-NietoC. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2006;54(1):94‐110. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03794.x.
22.
BansalCScottRStewartDCockerellCJ. Decubitus ulcers: a review of the literature. Int J Dermatol. 2005;44(10):805‐810. doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2005.02636.x.
23.
JaulE. Assessment and management of pressure ulcers in the elderly: current strategies. Drugs Aging. 2010;27(4):311‐325. doi:10.2165/11318340-000000000-00000.
24.
KernozekTWWilderPAAmundsonAHummerJ. The effects of body mass index on peak seat-interface pressure of institutionalized elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(6):868‐871. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.32741.
25.
DrakeDJSwansonMBakerG, et al.The association of BMI and braden total score on the occurrence of pressure ulcers. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2010;37(4):367‐371. doi:10.1097/WON.0b013e3181e45774
26.
NancyGARashmiBKalpanaR.Region Specific Weight Measuring System for Bedridden patients. In: 2020 Sixth International Conference on Bio Signals, Images, and Instrumentation (ICBSII). 2020:1‐4. doi:10.1109/ICBSII49132.2020.9167606.
27.
ReswickJRogersJ. Experiences at rancho Los amigos hospital with devices and techniques to prevent pressure sores. In: KennediRCowdenJ, eds. Bedsore Biomechanics. University Park Press; 1976:301‐310.
28.
SchouchoffB. Pressure ulcer development in the operating room. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2002;25(1):76‐82.
29.
GefenA. How much time does it take to get a pressure ulcer? Integrated evidence from human, animal, and in vitro studies. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2008;54(10):26‐35.
30.
VanderweeKGrypdonckMHDe BacquerDDefloorT. Effectiveness of turning with unequal time intervals on the incidence of pressure ulcer lesions. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(1):59‐68. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04060.x.
31.
SwisherSLLinMCLiaoA, et al. Impedance sensing device enables early detection of pressure ulcers in vivo. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6575. Published 2015 Mar 17. doi:10.1038/ncomms7575.
32.
MarkxGHDaveyCL. The dielectric properties of biological cells at radiofrequencies: applications in biotechnology. Enzyme Microb Technol. 1999;25(3-5):161‐171. doi:10.1016/S0141-0229(99)00008-3.
33.
Bates-JensenBMMcCreathHEKonoAApelesNCAlessiC. Subepidermal moisture predicts erythema and stage 1 pressure ulcers in nursing home residents: a pilot study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(8):1199‐1205. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01261.x.
34.
MooreZPattonDRhodesSLO'ConnorT. Subepidermal moisture (SEM) and bioimpedance: a literature review of a novel method for early detection of pressure-induced tissue damage (pressure ulcers). Int Wound J. 2017;14(2):331‐337. doi:10.1111/iwj.12604.
35.
YangYWangJ. A design of bioimpedance spectrometer for early detection of pressure ulcer. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;2005:6602‐6604. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2005.1616014.
36.
Bates-JensenBMMcCreathHEPongquanVApelesNC. Subepidermal moisture differentiates erythema and stage I pressure ulcers in nursing home residents. Wound Repair Regen. 2008;16(2):189‐197. doi:10.1111/j.1524-475X.2008.00359.x.
37.
Bates-JensenBMMcCreathHEPongquanV. Subepidermal moisture is associated with early pressure ulcer damage in nursing home residents with dark skin tones: pilot findings. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009;36(3):277‐284. doi:10.1097/WON.0b013e3181a19e53.
38.
LiaoALinMCRitzLC, et al. Impedance sensing device for monitoring ulcer healing in human patients: 37th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, EMBC 2015. 2015 37th Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc EMBC 2015. Published online November 4, 2015. 2015;5130‐5133. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319546.
39.
CaggiariSWorsleyPRPayanYBuckiMBaderDL. Biomechanical monitoring and machine learning for the detection of lying postures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2020;80:105181. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105181.
40.
Sae-SiaWWipke-TevisDDWilliamsDA. Elevated sacral skin temperature (T[s]): a risk factor for pressure ulcer development in hospitalized neurologically impaired Thai patients. Appl Nurs Res. 2005;18(1):29‐35. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2004.03.005.
41.
SatoMSanadaHKonyaCSugamaJNakagamiG. Prognosis of stage I pressure ulcers and related factors. Int Wound J. 2006;3(4):355‐362. doi:10.1111/j.1742-481X.2006.00267.x.
42.
YilmazİGünesÜY. Sacral skin temperature and pressure ulcer development: a descriptive study. Wound Manag Prev. 2019;65(8):30‐37.
43.
BhargavaAChanmugamAHermanC. Heat transfer model for deep tissue injury: a step towards an early thermographic diagnostic capability. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9(36). Published 2014 Feb 20. doi:10.1186/1746-1596-9-36.
44.
BenbowSJChanAWBowsherDRWilliamsGMacfarlaneIA. The prediction of diabetic neuropathic plantar foot ulceration by liquid-crystal contact thermography. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(8):835‐839. doi:10.2337/diacare.17.8.835.
45.
KokateJYLelandKJHeldAM, et al.Temperature-modulated pressure ulcers: a porcine model. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(7):666‐673. doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(95)80637-7.
46.
JudyDBrooksBFennieKLyderCBurtonC. Improving the detection of pressure ulcers using the TMI ImageMed system. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2011;24(1):18‐24. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000392925.83594.50.
47.
YamamotoTYamamotoNAzumaSTodokoroTKoshimaI. Handy thermography for bedside evaluation of pressure ulcer. J PlastReconstrAesthet Surg. 2013;66(7):e205‐e206. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.02.005.
48.
MayrovitzHNSpagnaPETaylorMC. Sacral skin temperature assessed by thermal imaging: role of patient vascular attributes. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2018;45(1):17‐21. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000392.
QuintavallePRLyderCHMertzPJPhillips-JonesCDysonM. Use of high-resolution, high-frequency diagnostic ultrasound to investigate the pathogenesis of pressure ulcer development. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2006;19(9):498‐505. doi:10.1097/00129334-200611000-00010.
51.
AoiNYoshimuraKKadonoT, et al.Ultrasound assessment of deep tissue injury in pressure ulcers: possible prediction of pressure ulcer progression. PlastReconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):540‐550. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181addb33.
52.
KitamuraAYoshimuraMNakagamiGYabunakaKSanadaH. Changes of tissue images visualised by ultrasonography in the process of pressure ulcer occurrence. J Wound Care. 2019;28(Sup4):S18‐S22. doi:10.12968/jowc.2019.
53.
HigashinoTNakagamiGKadonoT, et al.Combination of thermographic and ultrasonographic assessments for early detection of deep tissue injury. Int Wound J. 2014;11(5):509‐516. doi:10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01117.x.
54.
YabunakaKNakagamiGMiyagakiTSasakiSHayashiCSanadaH. Color Doppler ultrasonography to evaluate hypoechoic areas in pressure ulcers: a report of Two cases. J Med Ultrasound. 2018;26(3):163‐165. doi:10.4103/JMU.JMU_60_18.
55.
LeeYJSadighSMankadKKapseNRajeswaranG. The imaging of osteomyelitis. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2016;6(2):184‐198. doi:10.21037/qims.2016.04.01.
56.
HauptfleischJMeagherTMHughesRJSinghJPGrahamAde Heredia LL. Interobserver agreement of magnetic resonance imaging signs of osteomyelitis in pelvic pressure ulcers in patients with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(6):1107‐1111. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.012.
57.
López de HerediaLHauptfleischJHughesRGrahamAMeagherTM. Magnetic resonance imaging of pressure sores in spinal cord injured patients: accuracy in predicting osteomyelitis. Top Spinal Cord InjRehabil. 2012;18(2):146‐148. doi:10.1310/sci1802-146.
58.
HenceyJYVermessMvan GeertruydenHHBinardJEManchepalliS. Magnetic resonance imaging examinations of gluteal decubitus ulcers in spinal cord injury patients. J Spinal Cord Med. 1996;19(1):5‐8. doi:10.1080/10790268.1996.11719410.
59.
MakhsousMLimDHendrixRBankardJRymerWZLinF. Finite element analysis for evaluation of pressure ulcer on the buttock: development and validation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15(4):517‐525. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2007.906967.
60.
JinYPiaoJLeeSM. Evaluating the validity of the braden scale using longitudinal electronic medical records. Res Nurs Health. 2015;38(2):152‐161. doi:10.1002/nur.21642.
61.
SchottM, Dachi L, Cassol MC, Brondani JE, Colpo E. Risk of pressure ulcer in hospitalized patients after stroke: relation of nutritional factors and of morbidity. Clin Pract. 2018;15(1):424‐432.
62.
BorghardtATPradoTNAraújoTMRogenskiNMBringuenteME. Evaluation of the pressure ulcers risk scales with critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2015;23(1):28‐35. doi:10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2521.
63.
ThompsonD. An evaluation of the waterlow pressure ulcer risk-assessment tool. British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing). 2005;14(8):455‐459.
64.
MahalingamSGaoLNageshwaranSVickersCBottomleyTGrewalP. Improving pressure ulcer risk assessment and management using the waterlow scale at a London teaching hospital. J Wound Care. 2014;23(12):613‐622. doi:10.12968/jowc.2014.23.12.613.
65.
SullivanRBarnbyEGrahamS. Evaluation of a modified version of the norton scale for Use as a pressure injury risk assessment instrument in critical care: a quality improvement project. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020;47(3):224‐229. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000642.
66.
ColemanSSmithILMcGinnisE, et al.Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the pressure ulcer risk primary or secondary evaluation tool (PURPOSE T). J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(2):407‐424. doi:10.1111/jan.13444.
67.
ChouRDanaTBougatsosC, et al.Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: a systematic comparative effectiveness review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(1):28‐38. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-1-201307020-00006.
68.
ZaratkiewiczSWhitneyJDLoweJRTaylorSO'DonnellFMinton-FoltzP. Development and implementation of a hospital-acquired pressure ulcer incidence tracking system and algorithm. J Healthc Qual. 2010;32(6):44‐51. doi:10.1111/j.1945-1474.2010.00076.x.
69.
ShreveJ, Van Den Bos J, Gray T, Halford M, Rustagi K, Ziemkiewicz E. The economic measurement of medical errors sponsored by society of actuaries’ health section. Milliman Inc; 2010.
70.
DealeyCPosnettJWalkerA. The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom. J Wound Care. 2012;21(6):261‐266. doi:10.12968/jowc.2012.21.6.261.
71.
DemarréLVan LanckerAVan HeckeA, et al.The cost of prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(11):1754‐1774. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.06.006.
72.
KoernerSAdamsDHarperSLBlackJMLangemoDK. Use of thermal imaging to identify deep-tissue pressure injury on admission reduces clinical and financial burdens of hospital-acquired pressure injuries. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2019;32(7):312‐320. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000559613.83195.f9.
73.
ZeeviTLevyABraunerNGefenA. Effects of ambient conditions on the risk of pressure injuries in bedridden patients-multi-physics modelling of microclimate. Int Wound J. 2018;15(3):402‐416. doi:10.1111/iwj.12877.
74.
O'BrienGMooreZPattonDO'ConnorT. The relationship between nurses assessment of early pressure ulcer damage and sub epidermal moisture measurement: a prospective explorative study. J Tissue Viability. 2018;27(4):232‐237. doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2018.06.004.
75.
OkonkwoHBryantRMilneJ, et al.A blinded clinical study using a subepidermal moisture biocapacitance measurement device for early detection of pressure injuries. Wound Repair Regen. 2020;28(3):364‐374. doi:10.1111/wrr.12790.
76.
RaizmanRMacNeilMRapplL. Utility of a sensor-based technology to assist in the prevention of pressure ulcers: a clinical comparison. Int Wound J. 2018;15(6):1033‐1044. doi:10.1111/iwj.12974.
77.
NakagamiGSanadaHIizakaS, et al.Predicting delayed pressure ulcer healing using thermography: a prospective cohort study. J Wound Care. 2010;19(11):465-466, 468, 470. doi:10.12968/jowc.2010.19.11.79695.
78.
MatsumotoMNakagamiGKitamuraA, et al.Ultrasound assessment of deep tissue on the wound bed and periwound skin: a classification system using ultrasound images. J Tissue Viability. 2021;30(1):28‐35. doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2020.08.002.
