Literature DB >> 19291121

Effect of a water-based no-sting, protective barrier formulation and a solvent-containing similar formulation on skin protection from medical adhesive trauma.

Ronald J Shannon1, Debashish Chakravarthy.   

Abstract

Trauma to the skin from repeated removal of adhesive-based medical products can cause pain, anxiety, risk of secondary infections and additional health care costs. Skin barrier formulations are used to protect the integrity from such trauma. However, not all formulations are equally protective. We report the results of a randomised controlled study comparing a solvent-free (SF) formulation and a solvent-containing (SC) formulation to the skin of 12 healthy volunteers aged 18-55 years. Treatments were applied at baseline to two of the four test sites on the back of each subject and repeated for 5 days. Measurements of pain, discomfort, erythema and skin water loss were taken 24 hours after each application. The SF formulation is associated with lower mean scores for erythema (day 5, P < 0.05) and lower values for transepidermal water loss (day 5, P < 0.05) and redness (days 4 and 5, P < 0.05) when compared with either no treatment or daily treatment with a SC formulation. There were no significant differences between subject responses when pain on application of the test formulation or discomfort associated with removal of the medical adhesive tapes were rated. We conclude that a SF formulation provides better security against adhesive-derived skin trauma than a SC formulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19291121      PMCID: PMC7951433          DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00559.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Wound J        ISSN: 1742-4801            Impact factor:   3.315


  25 in total

1.  Barrier recovery rate varies time-dependently in human skin.

Authors:  M Denda; T Tsuchiya
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 9.302

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

Authors:  P J Dykes; R Heggie; S A Hill
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.072

Review 3.  Impact on pain control, epidermal stripping, leakage of wound fluid, ease of use, pressure reduction, and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  D W Brett
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.741

4.  Burn wound evaporation--measurement of body fluid loss by probe evaporimeter and weight change.

Authors:  J C Ferguson; C J Martin; C Rayner
Journal:  Clin Phys Physiol Meas       Date:  1991-05

5.  Prospective, randomized study of the efficacy of Mepitel on children with partial-thickness scalds.

Authors:  C S Gotschall; M I Morrison; M R Eichelberger
Journal:  J Burn Care Rehabil       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug

6.  Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement. A report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis.

Authors:  J Pinnagoda; R A Tupker; T Agner; J Serup
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 6.600

7.  Skin irritation due to repetitive application of adhesive tape: the influence of adhesive strength and seasonal variability.

Authors:  Fumio Tokumura; Kazuo Umekage; Masashi Sado; Saburo Otsuka; Shin Suda; Masaharu Taniguchi; Akira Yamori; Atsushi Nakamura; Jun Kawai; Keiji Oka
Journal:  Skin Res Technol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.365

Review 8.  Pediatric skin care: guidelines for assessment, prevention, and treatment.

Authors:  Colleen T Butler
Journal:  Pediatr Nurs       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct

9.  Transepidermal water loss: the signal for recovery of barrier structure and function.

Authors:  G Grubauer; P M Elias; K R Feingold
Journal:  J Lipid Res       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 5.922

10.  Water vapour transmission rates in burns and chronic leg ulcers: influence of wound dressings and comparison with in vitro evaluation.

Authors:  P Wu; E A Nelson; W H Reid; C V Ruckley; J D Gaylor
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 12.479

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.