Evaluation study of the properties of two adhesive foam dressings.
The primary objective of this study was to assess the skin stripping of wounds (defined as periwound skin blistering; Fowler, 1990) when treated with an adhesive hydrocellular foam dressing (Allevyn trade mark Adhesive, Smith and Nephew) and a self-adherent soft silicone foam dressing (Mepilex trade mark Border, MöInlycke Health Care). The secondary objectives were to assess wound healing, wound appearance and pain. Data were collected over one year from 403 wounds in 206 patients treated in nursing homes. At follow-up assessment, there was some evidence of skin stripping with both products - 5% (5/106) with the adhesive hydrocellular, and 4% (4/100 with the self-adherent dressing. The results of the study reveal that the closure rates achieved with the two dressings were similar, and that both dressings were equally safe in terms of skin stripping. Independent nurse evaluations highlighted the failure of the self-adherent soft silicone foam dressing to either initially adhere to the wound area, or to remain in contact for more than a few days, and frequently needed the application of additional tape to ensure adhesion. The failure of the self-adhesive soft silicone foam dressing to adhere to the periwound area was a significant deterrent to staff to use this type of dressing routinely.
Viamontes
Louis
L
Wound Clinics of America, Jensen Beach, Florida, USA.
Jones
Annie M
AM
D000269:Adhesives / Q000009:adverse effects*; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009779:Occlusive Dressings / Q000009:adverse effects; D012828:Silicones; D012867:Skin / Q000293:injuries*; D012883:Skin Ulcer / Q000628:therapy*; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D014945:Wound Healing
D000269:Adhesives; D012828:Silicones