Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2026

Live Cell Analysis of Shear Stress on Pseudomonas aeruginosa Using an Automated Higher-Throughput Microfluidic System
Published on: January 16, 2019
A quantitative analysis of pressure and shear in the effectiveness of support surfaces
R Fontaine1, S Risley, R Castellino
1RIK Medical, Boulder, Colo., USA.
Purpose:
We compared pressure and shear among 3 support surfaces in a controlled laboratory setting.
Methods:
In this comparative study, interface pressure and shear were measured in 11 healthy subjects with use of 3 different Medicare-approved, group 2 therapeutic support surfaces. Each surface was placed on 1 of 3 identical platforms, allowing for a fixed, 45-degree head-of-bed (HOB) elevation. Multiple pressure readings were taken at each test site and each HOB position until a measurement that was determined to be reliable was obtained. A shear force measurement was obtained using a noninvasive instrument of proprietary design, and a formula linking the effects of shear force and pressure was calculated. Data were then compared using analysis of variance; specific differences were identified using the post hoc Duncan test.
Findings:
Pressure readings on the nonpowered fluid overlay device were lower at the trochanter than when compared with the powered, air-filled overlay (23.7 mm Hg vs 36.7 mm Hg; P = .017). Both the nonpowered fluid overlay and the powered air-filled mattress provided pressure readings at the sacrum with HOB elevation that were lower than those recorded on the powered air-filled overlay (16.2 mm Hg and 19.6 mm Hg vs 27.5 mm Hg, respectively; P < .001). Pressure measurements taken at the heels, supine sacrum, and scapula were not significantly different for any of the surfaces. Shear force readings were significantly lower on the nonpowered fluid overlay when compared with the powered air-filled overlay and powered air-filled mattress (79.3 g vs 257.82 g and 231.38 g, respectively; P = .015).
Conclusions:
Measurements of shear obtained on the nonpowered fluid overlay support surface were significantly lower than those obtained on either of the powered support surfaces. Reduction in shear force might explain the accelerated healing observed in patients being treated with the nonpowered support surface. Randomized clinical trials to validate perceptions of enhanced healing rates are required.
More Related Videos
13:07Optical Coherence Tomography Based Biomechanical Fluid-Structure Interaction Analysis of Coronary Atherosclerosis Progression
Published on: January 15, 2022
06:45Development of a Benchtop Model for Evaluating the Compatibility of Wound Dressing Materials with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems
Published on: May 2, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Shearing Stress
The average shearing stress can be calculated by dividing the shear by the area of the cross-section.
Stress: General Loading Conditions
The shearing force, possessing potential directionality within the plane of the section, is simplified into two component forces running parallel to the x and y axes.
Components of Stress
Interestingly, the hidden cube faces also experience these stresses, equal and opposite to those on the...
Thin-Walled Hollow Shafts
Principal Stresses: Problem Solving
Stresses under Combined Loadings
The process begins by slicing the tube at critical points and analyzing the internal forces and stress components at these sections, focusing on the centroid. Normal stresses, generated by axial forces and bending moments, are either compressive or tensile and vary across the section from...