N Ohura1, S Ichioka, T Nakatsuka, M Shibata. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Saitama Medical School, Saitama, Japan. nohura-tky@umin.ac.jp
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Shear force is believed to affect pressure ulceration. Therefore, dressing materials that reduce shear force may prevent ulceration and facilitate healing. METHOD: We measured the following three properties: the coefficient of friction between the outer layer of the dressings and the patient's clothes; the degree of adhesiveness between the inner layer of the dressing and the patient's skin; the transmissibility of shear force of the dressing. RESULTS: The coefficients of static friction were 1.01 for hydropolymer, 0.72 for hydrofoam and 0.48 for hydrocolloid. Adhesiveness was tested by rolling different sized ball bearings down a slope and over the adhesive lining under both wet and dry conditions. Under dry conditions, the heaviest ball bearing that stopped rolling for five seconds was 111.9g for both hydrofoam and hydrocolloid. Under wet condition, it was 11.9g for hydrofoam and under 1g for hydrocolloid. Tests showed the very low transmissibility (I N buffer) of shear force for hydrofoam, with significant differences between the dressings. Clinical observation has identified good results for hydrofoam when used under highly exuding conditions and for hydrocolloid when used with relatively slight or decreased exudate. CONCLUSION: Existing dressing materials are being developed and evaluated for wound healing. However, if innovations in the raw materials from which dressings are manufactured could lead to a reduction in shear force and the prevention of pressure ulcers, then dressing materials could be discussed from a viewpoint that is quite different from wound healing.
OBJECTIVE: Shear force is believed to affect pressure ulceration. Therefore, dressing materials that reduce shear force may prevent ulceration and facilitate healing. METHOD: We measured the following three properties: the coefficient of friction between the outer layer of the dressings and the patient's clothes; the degree of adhesiveness between the inner layer of the dressing and the patient's skin; the transmissibility of shear force of the dressing. RESULTS: The coefficients of static friction were 1.01 for hydropolymer, 0.72 for hydrofoam and 0.48 for hydrocolloid. Adhesiveness was tested by rolling different sized ball bearings down a slope and over the adhesive lining under both wet and dry conditions. Under dry conditions, the heaviest ball bearing that stopped rolling for five seconds was 111.9g for both hydrofoam and hydrocolloid. Under wet condition, it was 11.9g for hydrofoam and under 1g for hydrocolloid. Tests showed the very low transmissibility (I N buffer) of shear force for hydrofoam, with significant differences between the dressings. Clinical observation has identified good results for hydrofoam when used under highly exuding conditions and for hydrocolloid when used with relatively slight or decreased exudate. CONCLUSION: Existing dressing materials are being developed and evaluated for wound healing. However, if innovations in the raw materials from which dressings are manufactured could lead to a reduction in shear force and the prevention of pressure ulcers, then dressing materials could be discussed from a viewpoint that is quite different from wound healing.
Authors: Evan Call; Justin Pedersen; Brian Bill; Joyce Black; Paulo Alves; C Tod Brindle; Carol Dealey; Nick Santamaria; Michael Clark Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 3.315