4.6 Article

Factors Associated With Pressure Ulcers in Individuals With Spina Bifida

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.02.029

关键词

Pressure ulcer; Rehabilitation; Risk factors; Spinal cord injuries

资金

  1. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA [1UO1DDD000744.01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe factors associated with pressure ulcers in individuals with spina bifida (SB) enrolled in the National Spina Bifida Patient Registry (NSBPR). Design: Unbalanced longitudinal multicenter cohort study. Setting: Nineteen SB clinics. Participants: Individuals with SB (N=3153) enrolled in 19 clinic sites that participate in the NSBPR. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Pressure ulcer status (yes/no) at the annual visit between 2009 and 2012. Results: Of 3153 total participants, 19% (n = 603) reported ulcers at their most recent annual clinic visit. Seven factors level of lesion, wheelchair use, urinary incontinence, shunt presence, above the knee orthopedic surgery, recent surgery, and male sex were significantly associated with the presence of pressure ulcers. Of these factors, level of lesion, urinary incontinence, recent surgery, and male sex were included in the final logistic regression model. The 3 adjusting variables SB type, SB clinic, and age group were significant in all analyses (all P<.001). Conclusions: By adjusting for SB type, SB clinic, and age group, we found that 7 factors level of lesion, wheelchair use, urinary incontinence, shunt presence, above the knee orthopedic surgery, recent surgery, and male sex were associated with pressure ulcers. Identifying key factors associated with the onset of pressure ulcers can be incorporated into clinical practice in ways that prevent and enhance treatment of pressure ulcers in the population with SB. (C) 2015 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据