RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Factors such as the manufacturing materials, shape or even the mechanical and thermal response of sitting Pressure Redistribution Support Surfaces (PRSS) can be potential contributors to pressure ulcers. However, few studies have compared a number of characteristics of the most frequently used devices. OBJECTIVE: To compare three potential contributors to pressure ulcers in five commercial PRSS: pressure redistribution, temperature and perceived comfort. METHOD: Study with a cross-over randomized design in healthy volunteer participants. Data was collected in a temperature and relative humidity controlled environment. To assess thermal response, the temperature (Flir-E60) of the region of interest was captured before and after use of each PRSS for further analysis. The region of interest was the gluteal zone. To assess the pressure redistribution a pressure mat (XSensor®) was used between the 5 cushion and each study participant using a standardized method. Finally, a subjective perception questionnaire recorded comfort, adaptability and thermal sensation parameters. Data analysis levels of significance were set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 22 participants completed the assessments. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline temperatures between PRSS (>0.05). Pressure redistribution analysis showed significant differences between all PRSS in all variables evaluated except in the maximum and peak pressure index al sacrum. The subjective assessment suggested no major user-perceived differences between PRSS. CONCLUSION: Seat cushions made of open cell polyurethane foam blocks of variable hardness and the horseshoe cushion (also open cell polyurethane foam) seem to provide a more effective pressure relief characteristic than those injected with polyurethane foam and gel in most of the studied pressure variables. However, the cushions provide similar thermal response and perceived comfort.