Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as repositioning, to reconstructive surgery. The surgical approach is usually reserved for recalcitrant wounds (where the healing process has stalled, or the wound is not responding to treatment) or wounds with full-thickness skin loss and exposure of deeper structures such as muscle fascia or bone. Reconstructive surgery commonly involves wound debridement followed by filling the wound with new tissue. Whilst this is an accepted means of ulcer management, the benefits and harms of different surgical approaches, compared with each other or with non-surgical treatments, are unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different types of reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers (category/stage II or above), compared with no surgery or alternative reconstructive surgical approaches, in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted study data, assessed the risk of bias and undertook GRADE assessments. We would have involved a third review author in case of disagreement. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one RCT conducted in a hospital setting in the USA. It enrolled 20 participants aged between 20 and 70 years with stage IV ischial or sacral pressure ulcers (involving full-thickness skin and tissue loss). The study compared two reconstructive techniques for stage IV pressure ulcers: conventional flap surgery and cone of pressure flap surgery, in which a large portion of the flap tip is de-epithelialised and deeply inset to obliterate dead space. There were no clear data for any of our outcomes, although we extracted some information on complete wound healing, wound dehiscence, pressure ulcer recurrence and wound infection. We graded the evidence for these outcomes as very low-certainty. The study provided no data for any other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is very little randomised evidence on the role of reconstructive surgery in pressure ulcer management, although it is considered a priority area. More rigorous and robust research is needed to explore this intervention.

A soft silicone foam dressing that aids healing and comfort in oncology care.

Maintaining skin integrity plays a key role in the ongoing care and comfort of patients at the end of life. Unfortunately, patients receiving cancer treatments are at higher risk of altered skin integrity. Cancer treatments involve multiple modalities, all of which impair wound healing. Excess exudate can be distressing to patients, resulting in catastrophic damage to the wound bed and surrounding skin, reducing quality of life and increasing the need for specialist services. This article describes the use of the Kliniderm foam silicone range of dressings, in combination with best practice, in the treatment of wounds in the oncology setting. The case study evidence presented indicates that this range of dressings is useful in the management of radiotherapy and oncology wounds. It had a positive effect on the exudate level, wound-association pain and the peri-wound skin in these patients, aiding the management of the wound bed.

Preventing and managing device-related pressure ulcers in oncology.

There is growing evidence that medical device-related pressure ulcers (MDRPUs) are an increasing healthcare concern in all aspects of care. It is especially important to develop an individualised care plan for people at the end of life to prevent pressure ulceration and to treat this if it occurs. Tissue viability nurses have a responsibility to review and assess new prophylactic devices and dressings, to ensure a high standard of care is provided. This article describes the use of a soft silicone dressing, Kliniderm foam silicone lite, in combination with best practice, to prevent MDRPUs in the oncology setting. Three case studies show that the dressing helped avoid the occurrence of ulceration on the ears and nose in patients receiving oxygen through a nasal cannula.

A survey of UK nurses about their care of people with malignant fungating wounds.

PURPOSE: To gain an understanding of the nursing professionals who treat people with malignant fungating wounds (MFW) in the UK and their current practices, including perceived barriers and facilitators to providing MFW care. METHOD: An online anonymous questionnaire was created with questions about the role of nursing professionals who reported caring for patients with MFW, the number of people with MFW they regularly cared for, treatment aims, treatments used, and challenges faced. These questions were developed with professional input and piloted. Using a convenience sampling method, we collected responses from UK nurses by distributing the questionnaire via social media and through relevant professional organisations. The questionnaire was constructed in QualtricsXM software and analysed using SPSS. RESULT: We received 154 questionnaire responses, with three-quarters from tissue viability nurses and the rest from community and other specialist nurses. The most important treatment aim reported was pain management, followed by odour management. Almost all respondents used antimicrobial and standard dressings for these patients, with a range of products reported. Poor access to MFW care training and lack of local and national guidelines were reported as barriers to providing care for people with MFW. Availability of dressings, access to training, and good communication processes were reported as facilitators. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore MFW wound care practices in the UK. A range of nurses are involved in care delivery with variations in the treatments used. Lack of access to MFW care training, resources, and standardised guidelines may impede care delivery.