Literature DB >> 12894697

The link between the peel force of adhesive dressings and subjective discomfort in volunteer subjects.

P J Dykes1, R Heggie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The study compared the level of discomfort experienced by healthy volunteers on the removal of a range of adhesive wounds.
METHOD: This was an open, within subject comparative study of six adhesive dressings in 24 volunteers. The test site was the lower back. Allocation of test materials to the test sites was randomised. The peel force of removal was recorded after 24 hours of application using a device that removed the dressing at a constant speed and angle to the skin surface. The discomfort experienced at each removal was assessed by the subjects themselves using an electronic visual analogue scale.
RESULTS: Overall, Mepilex Border was given a significantly lower discomfort score (p < or = 0.01) by the subjects than the other dressings. There were no clear differences between the five other products tested. Tielle and Allevyn Adhesive had significantly higher (p < or = 0.05) peel force than the other products. Mepilex Border caused less discomfort on removal than Duoderm Extra Thin, Biatain and Versiva, even though the peel force was similar. Tielle and Allevyn had higher peel force, but the levels of discomfort were not significantly higher for these products.
CONCLUSION: It may be that the level of discomfort experienced by subjects on removal of an adhesive dressing is not entirely dependent on the peel force and that other aspects of the interaction of the skin surface and adhesive play a role.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12894697     DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2003.12.7.26567

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Wound Care        ISSN: 0969-0700            Impact factor:   2.072


  8 in total

1.  Anular delamination strength of human lumbar intervertebral disc.

Authors:  Diane E Gregory; Won C Bae; Robert L Sah; Koichi Masuda
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  A descriptive study of Korean nurses' perception of pain and skin tearing at dressing change.

Authors:  Jung Yoon Kim; Na Kyung Kim; Yun Jin Lee
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  A model for quantitative evaluation of skin damage at adhesive wound dressing removal.

Authors:  Hajime Matsumura; Niyaz Ahmatjan; Yukiko Ida; Ryutaro Imai; Katsueki Wanatabe
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing the performance of a soft silicone-coated wound contact layer (Mepitel One) with a lipidocolloid wound contact layer (UrgoTul) in the treatment of acute wounds.

Authors:  Franck David; Jean-Louis Wurtz; Nicolas Breton; Olivier Bisch; Philippe Gazeu; Jean-Charles Kerihuel; Odile Guibon
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Effect of a water-based no-sting, protective barrier formulation and a solvent-containing similar formulation on skin protection from medical adhesive trauma.

Authors:  Ronald J Shannon; Debashish Chakravarthy
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 6.  Minimising wound-related pain at dressing change: evidence-informed practice.

Authors:  Kevin Y Woo; Keith Harding; Patricia Price; Gary Sibbald
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  Dressing-related trauma: clinical sequelae and resource utilization in a UK setting.

Authors:  Bruce Charlesworth; Claire Pilling; Paul Chadwick; Martyn Butcher
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2014-04-28

8.  Amplicon-based skin microbiome profiles collected by tape stripping with different adhesive film dressings: a comparative study.

Authors:  Kana Shibata; Natsuki Takahashi; Kazuhiro Ogai; Kohei Ogura; Shigefumi Okamoto; Junko Sugama
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 3.605

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.