OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical performance of a transparent absorbent acrylic dressing (3M Tegaderm Absorbent Clear Acrylic Dressing ]TAAD[; 3M Company, St Paul, MN) and a hydrocolloid dressing (HD ]DuoDERM CGF, ConvaTec, ER Squibb & Sons, Princeton, NJ[) in the management of Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative, multisite clinical evaluation. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 56 days or until their ulcer healed. At weekly intervals, investigators conducted wound assessments and dressing performance evaluations. SETTING: Wound care clinics, home care, and long-term care. PATIENTS: Thirty-five patients received the TAAD, and 37 received the HD. OUTCOME MEASURES: Dressing performance assessments, patient comfort, dressing wear time, and wound healing were measured. RESULTS: The majority of investigator assessments favored the TAAD. Considerations given included the ability to center dressings over the ulcer (P = .005), ability to assess the ulcer before (P < .001) and after (P < .001) absorption, barrier properties (P = .039), patient comfort during removal (P < .001), overall patient comfort (P = .048), conformability before (P = .026) and after (P = .001) absorption, ease of removal (P < .001), nonadherence to wound bed (P < .001), residue in the wound (P = .002), residue on periwound skin (P < .001), and odor after absorption (P = .016). Overall satisfaction favored the TAAD (P < .001), and a high value was placed on its transparent feature (P < .001). Mean (SD) wear time for the TAAD was 5.7 (2.55) days compared with 4.7 (2.29) days for the HD (P = .086). This 1-day difference in wear time was clinically noticeable by the investigators (P = .035). Wound closure for the 2 dressing groups was nearly identical (P = .9627). CONCLUSIONS: Performance results favored the TAAD over the HD as standard treatment for Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical performance of a transparent absorbent acrylic dressing (3M Tegaderm Absorbent Clear Acrylic Dressing ]TAAD[; 3M Company, St Paul, MN) and a hydrocolloid dressing (HD ]DuoDERM CGF, ConvaTec, ER Squibb & Sons, Princeton, NJ[) in the management of Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative, multisite clinical evaluation. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 56 days or until their ulcer healed. At weekly intervals, investigators conducted wound assessments and dressing performance evaluations. SETTING: Wound care clinics, home care, and long-term care. PATIENTS: Thirty-five patients received the TAAD, and 37 received the HD. OUTCOME MEASURES: Dressing performance assessments, patient comfort, dressing wear time, and wound healing were measured. RESULTS: The majority of investigator assessments favored the TAAD. Considerations given included the ability to center dressings over the ulcer (P = .005), ability to assess the ulcer before (P < .001) and after (P < .001) absorption, barrier properties (P = .039), patient comfort during removal (P < .001), overall patient comfort (P = .048), conformability before (P = .026) and after (P = .001) absorption, ease of removal (P < .001), nonadherence to wound bed (P < .001), residue in the wound (P = .002), residue on periwound skin (P < .001), and odor after absorption (P = .016). Overall satisfaction favored the TAAD (P < .001), and a high value was placed on its transparent feature (P < .001). Mean (SD) wear time for the TAAD was 5.7 (2.55) days compared with 4.7 (2.29) days for the HD (P = .086). This 1-day difference in wear time was clinically noticeable by the investigators (P = .035). Wound closure for the 2 dressing groups was nearly identical (P = .9627). CONCLUSIONS: Performance results favored the TAAD over the HD as standard treatment for Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers.
Authors: Magdalena Sylwia Kamińska; Anna Maria Cybulska; Karolina Skonieczna-Żydecka; Katarzyna Augustyniuk; Elżbieta Grochans; Beata Karakiewicz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 3.390