Literature DB >> 14581709

A study to compare a new self-adherent soft silicone dressing with a self-adherent polymer dressing in stage II pressure ulcers.

Sylive Maume1, Dirk Van De Looverbosch, Hilde Heyman, Marco Romanelli, Andrea Ciangherotti, Sylvie Charpin.   

Abstract

Pressure ulcers are common among elderly nursing home residents. To be effective in managing these wounds, a dressing should maintain a moist environment, facilitate healing, absorb exudate, remain in place for a number of days, and prevent trauma to the surrounding skin. An 8-week, open, randomized, multicenter, controlled study was conducted to compare the effects of a new self-adherent soft silicone dressing and a self-adherent hydropolymer dressing on Stage II pressure ulcers. Thirty-eight (38) residents participated in the study. Eighteen residents (mean age 83.8 years, range 74.9 to 95.1 years) were randomized to wound management with a soft silicone dressing, and the ulcers of 20 residents (mean age 82.5 years, range 66.4 to 91.9 years) were managed with a hydropolymer dressing. Wound healing, wound and surrounding skin characteristics, and ease of dressing removal were measured and documented. During the study, eight (44%) ulcers in the soft silicone group and 10 (50%) in the hydropolymer dressing group healed. Both dressings were changed approximately once a week and no differences in signs of inflammation, amount of exudate and odor, or incidence of leakage were observed. Damage to the surrounding skin, maceration, and dressing removal difficulties were less common with the soft silicone dressing. Differences in tissue damage between the two dressings were significant during weeks 1, 2, and 3 (P < 0.05). Studies with a larger sample size are needed to confirm these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14581709

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage        ISSN: 0889-5899            Impact factor:   2.629


  8 in total

Review 1.  Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Maggie J Westby; Jo C Dumville; Marta O Soares; Nikki Stubbs; Gill Norman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-06-22

2.  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

3.  Evaluation of Tielle hydropolymer dressings in the management of chronic exuding wounds in primary care.

Authors:  Curt Diehm; Holger Lawall
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 4.  Pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Nicky Cullum; Emily Petherick
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2008-03-19

5.  A closer examination of atraumatic dressings for optimal healing.

Authors:  Stephen C Davis; Jie Li; Joel Gil; Jose Valdes; Michael Solis; Ryan Treu; Robert S Kirnser
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2013-09-13       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.  A multi-center, randomized, clinical trial comparing adhesive polyurethane foam dressing and adhesive hydrocolloid dressing in patients with grade II pressure ulcers in primary care and nursing homes.

Authors:  Mireia Guillén-Solà; Aina Soler Mieras; Antònia M Tomàs-Vidal
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-12-21       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 8.  Management of Moisture-Associated Skin Damage: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Kevin Y Woo; Dimitri Beeckman; Debashish Chakravarthy
Journal:  Adv Skin Wound Care       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.347

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.