OBJECTIVE: To compare the fluid-handling properties of a range of commonly used absorbent foam dressings. Results were analysed to generate broad estimates of wear time, using previously published data for the rate at which exudate is produced by various wound types. METHOD: Test data were produced by an independent, accredited test facility using a series of standard test systems, and submitted to the author for review and interpretation. RESULTS: Absorbency values for the cavity foam dressings tested ranged from 11 to 16 grams per 10cm(2) sample under the specified test conditions. The increase in dressing volume ranged from 71% to 206%, although this did not always correlate directly with absorbency values. Foam-film dressing tests revealed large variations in product performance. The total fluid handling capacity of dressings (the sum of absorbency and evaporative loss) ranged from approximately 7 to 26 grams per sample. These differences are largely due to variations in permeability of the film backing layer, which ranged from approximately 2000 to 20,000g/m(2)/24h. Compression reduced the absorbency of most dressings but it appeared to enhance the performance of one product (possibly through ensuring contact between the test sample and the simulated wound bed). 9 of the 11 sheet dressings tested were estimated to be capable of managing normal levels of wound exudate for 48 hours, based solely on their absorbency figures. Considering the additional effects of moisture vapour permeability, theoretical wear time increases to five days in a number of instances. CONCLUSION: The laboratory data suggest considerable differences in the clinical performance of dressings. Making a number of assumptions as stated in the text, predicted values for clinical performance were generated. These estimates show marked differences between dressings. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: This report was produced by the author for a professional fee, from BSN, as a medical device consultant and medical writer using test data generated independently by an accredited laboratory. The author had no involvement either with the choice of test methods, or the range of dressings included in the study, and has no financial interests in any of the products concerned.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the fluid-handling properties of a range of commonly used absorbent foam dressings. Results were analysed to generate broad estimates of wear time, using previously published data for the rate at which exudate is produced by various wound types. METHOD: Test data were produced by an independent, accredited test facility using a series of standard test systems, and submitted to the author for review and interpretation. RESULTS: Absorbency values for the cavity foam dressings tested ranged from 11 to 16 grams per 10cm(2) sample under the specified test conditions. The increase in dressing volume ranged from 71% to 206%, although this did not always correlate directly with absorbency values. Foam-film dressing tests revealed large variations in product performance. The total fluid handling capacity of dressings (the sum of absorbency and evaporative loss) ranged from approximately 7 to 26 grams per sample. These differences are largely due to variations in permeability of the film backing layer, which ranged from approximately 2000 to 20,000g/m(2)/24h. Compression reduced the absorbency of most dressings but it appeared to enhance the performance of one product (possibly through ensuring contact between the test sample and the simulated wound bed). 9 of the 11 sheet dressings tested were estimated to be capable of managing normal levels of wound exudate for 48 hours, based solely on their absorbency figures. Considering the additional effects of moisture vapour permeability, theoretical wear time increases to five days in a number of instances. CONCLUSION: The laboratory data suggest considerable differences in the clinical performance of dressings. Making a number of assumptions as stated in the text, predicted values for clinical performance were generated. These estimates show marked differences between dressings. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: This report was produced by the author for a professional fee, from BSN, as a medical device consultant and medical writer using test data generated independently by an accredited laboratory. The author had no involvement either with the choice of test methods, or the range of dressings included in the study, and has no financial interests in any of the products concerned.