Literature DB >> 12964220

Effects of adhesive dressings on the stratum corneum of the skin.

P J Dykes1, R Heggie, S A Hill.   

Abstract

Two human models were developed to quantify the stratum corneum removed by different adhesive dressings and to measure the peel force of dressing removal and relate this to stratum corneum removal. The first was an open study designed to compare the effects of applying Mepiform Safetac, Tielle and Duoderm Extra Thin to the skin of 12 normal volunteers aged 19-53 years. Treatments were applied once (one 24-hour application) or three times (three x 24-hour applications) to forearm skin which had been prestained with methylene blue. After dressing removal the dye left on the skin was sampled using the skin surface biopsy method and measured spectrophotometrically. The results show that, after one and three applications, the Mepiform Safetac sites had a higher level of dye than those on which the other dressings had been applied (p < 0.05, after three applications). Based on the assumption that the more dye is left on the skin, the less damage is caused, this suggests that Mepiform Safetac is less damaging to the skin surface than the other products tested. In the second study the peel force needed to remove adhesive dressings from prestained skin was measured and related to the amount of stratum corneum removed. Mepilex Border Safetac, Duoderm Extra Thin, Allevyn Adhesive, Biatain Adhesive and Tielle Hydropolymer Dressing were compared in 20 normal volunteers aged 23-64 years. Three consecutive 24-hour applications of each product were made, with measurements of peel force at 24, 48 and 72 hours. The amount of dye remaining on the skin at 72 hours was assessed by the surface biopsy method. Statistically significant differences between products were observed in terms of both peak force and steady state force of removal. Differences in the level of damage to the superficial stratum corneum were also detected. However, low levels of peel force were not always associated with low damage and, therefore, other factors must contribute to stratum corneum removal in this model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 12964220     DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.2.26054

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


  16 in total

1.  Vacuum-assisted closure with Safetac technology for mediastinitis in patients with a ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Osamu Kinoshita; Takashi Nishimura; Mitsuhiro Kawata; Masahiko Ando; Shunei Kyo; Minoru Ono
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 1.731

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

Review 3.  A dressing history.

Authors:  Douglas Queen; Heather Orsted; Hiromi Sanada; Geoff Sussman
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  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

Review 5.  Wound treatment and pain management: a stressful time.

Authors:  Kyoichi Matsuzaki; Dominic Upton
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 3.315

6.  Removal of adhesive wound dressing and its effects on the stratum corneum of the skin: comparison of eight different adhesive wound dressings.

Authors:  Hajime Matsumura; Ryutaro Imai; Niyaz Ahmatjan; Yukiko Ida; Masahide Gondo; Dai Shibata; Katsueki Wanatabe
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  Evaluation of pain intensity measurement during the removal of wound dressing material using 'the PainVision™ system' for quantitative analysis of perception and pain sensation in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Hajime Matsumura; Ryutaro Imai; Masahide Gondo; Katsueki Watanabe
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 3.315

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Case reports on the use of antimicrobial (silver impregnated) soft silicone foam dressing on infected diabetic foot ulcers.

Authors:  Jasper W K Tong
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.