Dabir^® Surface System

Surgical Table Compatibility:

• Most North American Surgical Tables

Bed Compatibility:

• Most Hospital Beds

OR System and ICU System include the following:

• Pressure Controller (1 for OR and 1 for ICU)
• Inflatable Overlays (various sizes)

MORE EFFECTIVE THAN STANDARD PROTOCOL:

The AP support surface was more effective at increasing sacral SBF over time than standard protocols, especially in participants with lower BMI who are at high risk for developing hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI). The tissue decompression observed during the deflation cycles may allow enhanced perfusion thus limiting risk for developing PIs from ischemia and constant loading.

OUTPERFORMS SACRAL DRESSINGS:

In lab testing, use of sacral dressing did not decrease interface pressure compared to OR pad alone condition. Use of the active Dabir surface lowered the IP values at the sacrum to less than 32 mmHg during the deflation cycles. The presence of the multiple layers in the sacral dressing did not decrease the IP values at the skin interface. IP values lower than 32mmHg is usually recommended to prevent occlusion of blood flow in the capillaries.

COMPATIBLE WITH COMMONLY USED GROUNDING PADS:

The effectiveness of electrosurgical procedures is dependent on having sufficient contact area between the patient and the grounding pad. Test data show that Dabir surfaces are compatible with popular commercially available grounding pads and provide effective periodic pressure reduction throughout the surgical duration.

DISPOSABLE PATIENT TRANSFER SURFACES:

Internal data demonstrated that the Dabir surgical surface is compatible with popular patient transfer devices when it is placed above the Dabir surface. The data also shows that the interface pressure during the deflation cycles of the Dabir surface is significantly lower than the continuous pressure observed with the patient transfer surface alone. Patient transfer surface should be deflated when the Dabir surface is used.

WHEN REPOSITIONING IS NOT AN OPTION:

In the perioperative setting, patients can be exposed to the cumulative effects of pressure beginning in pre-op through the intra-operative phase and into the PACU and ICU. It has been reported that 23% of all HAPIs are acquired intra-operatively during surgeries lasting three hours or more.³ Cardiac surgery patients are particularly at risk due to prolonged periods of time without the ability to reposition.^4,5

THE HAPI’s BURDEN TO THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM:

In the United States, approximately 2.5 million hospital acquired pressure injuries occur each year that translates into treatment costs ranging from $750 million to $1.5 billion annually.6 While estimates vary, the average cost to treat late stage pressure injuries is often cited at $43,180.⁷

PERIOPERATIVE CARE:

When hospital acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) occur in the perioperative setting they can negatively impact patient outcomes. Patients undergoing long procedures cannot reposition themselves, exposing them to cumulative effects of pressure. Deep tissue pressure injuries can present themselves 48-72 hours after surgical procedures.1 In some instances, root cause analysis has shown that the origin of the pressure injury took place in the operating room. A meta analysis conducted of surgical procedures for 5,451 patients showed a pooled 15% incidence rate for pressure injuries regardless of time or the type of procedure.²

References:

² Hong-Lin Chen Xiao-Yan Chen Juan Wu. The Incidence of Pressure Ulcers in Surgical Patients of the Last 5 Years: A Systematic Review. Wounds Vol 24 Issue 9 - September 2012

⁴ Rao A.D. et al. “Risk Factors Associated with Pressure Ulcer Formation in Critically Ill Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing. 2016;43(3):1-6.

⁵ Esch, Dianne, Scott Triggers: A Screening Tool for Pressure Ulcer Prevention in Surgical Patients, American Society of Peri-Anesthesia Nurses, June; 25; Issue 3; 186

⁷ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Fed Regist. 2008 Aug 19; 73(161): 48433-9084