Assessing the feasibility of subepidermal moisture to predict erythema and stage 1 pressure ulcers in persons with spinal cord injury: a pilot study.

Guihan M, Bates-Jenson BM, Chun S, Parachuri R, Chin AS, McCreath H. Assessing the feasibility of subepidermal moisture to predict erythema and stage 1 pressure ulcers in persons with spinal cord injury: a pilot study. The journal of spinal cord medicine. 2012 Jan 1; 35(1):46-52.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• RRP 07-347 – Biophysical Measure to Predict Pressure Ulcers in Spinal Cord Injured

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) are at high risk for pressure ulcers (PrUs) throughout their lifetime due to decreased mobility, lack of sensation, and other physiological changes. The high prevalence and recurrence rates, and costs associated with PrUs in veterans with SCI indicate the need for a reliable and practical method of detecting early PrUs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of obtaining biophysical measures of sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) using a handheld dermal phase meter to predict PrUs. DESIGN/METHODS: Prospective observational design. Thirty-four veterans at two VA SCI centers (Hines, Long Beach) received daily (n = 12) or weekly (n = 22) SEM and concurrent visual skin assessment (VSA) across nine anatomic locations for up to 6 weeks. Outcome measures: SEM, visual skin assessment (VSA), and stage I PrUs. Findings/results: SEM was lowest for normal skin (39.3 dermal phase units (DPU), SD = 12.6) and higher for erythema/stage 1 PrUs (40.8 DPU, SD = 10.4) across all anatomic sites. Buttocks SEM were different between normal skin (40.5 DPU, SD = 10.3) and erythema/stage1 PrUs (43.8, SD = 9.5). SEM taken at heels were lower across all skin conditions (normal skin 28.2 DPU; erythema/stage 1 PrUs 34.7 DPU). SEM was taken when generalized edema present was lower than without generalized edema. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results of using SEM to detect early PrU damage may translate from nursing home (NH) residents to persons with SCI. This study provides a foundation for a larger study to implement and assess SEM use as a method of prevention of PrUs.