OBJECTIVE: To find out which type of dressing (semipermeable film, hydrocolloid, conventional method, or no dressing) allowed abrasions to heal in the least amount of time and had the greatest decrease in wound area. DESIGN AND SETTING: A 4 x 9 factorial was used for this study. There were two independent variables with four levels and two dependent variables. Research was performed at the Athletic Training Research Laboratory at Indiana State University. SUBJECTS: Fourteen subjects (eight males, six females), ages 23 to 34 years, participated in this study. MEASUREMENTS: From daily photographs, the day the wounds were healed was determined. The photographs were also used to measure wound area on the first and last days of the study. Subjects received four treatments (dressings and control), and placement of the dressings was determined by random assignment. RESULTS: Data were analyzed using a repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance to determine if differences existed among treatment groups for healing time and change in area. Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc testing was performed to determine specifically where the differences occurred. Our results indicate that healing time is affected by covering the wound, and area is decreased by using DuoDerm or Bioclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Bioclusive should be used in the athletic training setting. Bioclusive and DuoDerm are equally effective, but Bioclusive is less expensive. Bioclusive is more expensive than Coverlet, but it is also more effective in reducing the area of the wound.
OBJECTIVE: To find out which type of dressing (semipermeable film, hydrocolloid, conventional method, or no dressing) allowed abrasions to heal in the least amount of time and had the greatest decrease in wound area. DESIGN AND SETTING: A 4 x 9 factorial was used for this study. There were two independent variables with four levels and two dependent variables. Research was performed at the Athletic Training Research Laboratory at Indiana State University. SUBJECTS: Fourteen subjects (eight males, six females), ages 23 to 34 years, participated in this study. MEASUREMENTS: From daily photographs, the day the wounds were healed was determined. The photographs were also used to measure wound area on the first and last days of the study. Subjects received four treatments (dressings and control), and placement of the dressings was determined by random assignment. RESULTS: Data were analyzed using a repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance to determine if differences existed among treatment groups for healing time and change in area. Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc testing was performed to determine specifically where the differences occurred. Our results indicate that healing time is affected by covering the wound, and area is decreased by using DuoDerm or Bioclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Bioclusive should be used in the athletic training setting. Bioclusive and DuoDerm are equally effective, but Bioclusive is less expensive. Bioclusive is more expensive than Coverlet, but it is also more effective in reducing the area of the wound.