↓ Skip to main content

Sitting can cause ischaemia in the subcutaneous tissue of the buttocks, which implicates multilayer tissue damage in the development of pressure ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Plastic Surgery & Hand Surgery, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sitting can cause ischaemia in the subcutaneous tissue of the buttocks, which implicates multilayer tissue damage in the development of pressure ulcers
Published in
Journal of Plastic Surgery & Hand Surgery, July 2009
DOI 10.1080/02844310902749455
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johan Thorfinn, Folke Sjöberg, Disa Lidman

Abstract

A better understanding of how pressure ulcers develop in the buttocks will improve prophylactic measures. Our aim was to investigate signs of reduced perfusion and ischaemia in the subcutaneous fat in the buttocks during sitting. A microelectrode was used to quantify oxygen (pO(2)). Metabolites that indicate aerobic or anaerobic metabolism (glucose, lactate, pyruvate, and glycerol) were quantified using microdialysis. Sixteen healthy people were studied while they sat on a wheel chair cushion, and a hard surface. Sitting pressures were mapped, and the thickness of the subcutaneous fatty layer was measured. The results showed that pO(2) and glucose were significantly reduced during sitting, and for pO(2) the effect is significantly more profound during sitting on a hard surface. After loading, both glucose and pO(2) increased significantly. We conclude that the subcutaneous adipose tissue covering the ischial tuberosities becomes ischaemic during sitting. This finding supports the theory that not only is the skin involved in early development of pressure ulcers, but also the deeper tissues.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Engineering 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2013.
All research outputs
#22,830,981
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Plastic Surgery & Hand Surgery
#362
of 398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,481
of 121,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Plastic Surgery & Hand Surgery
#166
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 398 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 121,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.