Literature DB >> 22068140

An evaluation of the skin stripping of wound dressing adhesives.

M Waring1, S Bielfeldt, K Mätzold, K P Wilhelm, M Butcher.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study looks at six different modern wound dressings to investigate how likely they are to cause skin stripping and impairment of the skin's barrier function.
METHOD: Healthy volunteers had each dressing applied, removed and reapplied to the skin on their back over the study period of 15 days. Skin barrier function was investigated using the amount of transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and then related to the amount of skin stripping, investigated by measuring stained skin removal, the thickness of the stratum corneum after treatment, and the amount of skin attached to the removed dressings. General signs of trauma, such as skin dryness and erythema, were investigated by subjective and objective parameters.
RESULTS: TEWL values measured on the untreated test area, as well as after application of Urgotul Trio, remained relatively unchanged and Mepilex Border decreased slightly (?1g/m2/h), while all other dressings displayed an increased in TEWL: Allevyn Adhesive (5g/m2/h), Versiva XC (14g/m2/h), Comfeel Plus (22g/m2/h) and Biatain (28g/m2/h). By the end of the study, only the untreated area (mean 43% dye remaining), Mepilex Border (76%) and Urgotul Trio (34%) areas had visible dye remaining. It is interesting to note that the untreated site had a colour change, suggesting loss of stratum corneum, due to the shedding of skin cells from the surface. The increase in total skin colour for Comfeel Plus and Biatain after day 8 might be assigned to an increased redness due to erythema. All the dressings showed evidence of stratum corneum attached to the adhesive, except Mepilex Border, which appeared to be free of any attached stratum corneum.
CONCLUSION: Overall the best performance in terms of skin protection and failure to cause skin trauma was found to be for Mepilex Border. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: This project was funded by a grant from Mölnlycke Healthcare Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22068140     DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2011.20.9.412

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Wound Care        ISSN: 0969-0700            Impact factor:   2.072


  13 in total

1.  A model for quantitative evaluation of skin damage at adhesive wound dressing removal.

Authors:  Hajime Matsumura; Niyaz Ahmatjan; Yukiko Ida; Ryutaro Imai; Katsueki Wanatabe
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  A closer examination of atraumatic dressings for optimal healing.

Authors:  Stephen C Davis; Jie Li; Joel Gil; Jose Valdes; Michael Solis; Ryan Treu; Robert S Kirnser
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 3.  Dressings and Products in Pediatric Wound Care.

Authors:  Alice King; Judith J Stellar; Anne Blevins; Kara Noelle Shah
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 4.  [Wound dressings. Overview and classification].

Authors:  T Horn
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  Removal of adhesive wound dressing and its effects on the stratum corneum of the skin: comparison of eight different adhesive wound dressings.

Authors:  Hajime Matsumura; Ryutaro Imai; Niyaz Ahmatjan; Yukiko Ida; Masahide Gondo; Dai Shibata; Katsueki Wanatabe
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 3.315

6.  Dressings as an adjunct to pressure ulcer prevention: consensus panel recommendations.

Authors:  Joyce Black; Michael Clark; Carol Dealey; Christopher T Brindle; Paulo Alves; Nick Santamaria; Evan Call
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  Measurement of morphological and physiological skin properties in aged care residents: a test-retest reliability pilot study.

Authors:  Robyn Rayner; Keryln Carville; Gavin Leslie; Satvinder S Dhaliwal
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 3.315

8.  A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing the performance of a soft silicone-coated wound contact layer (Mepitel One) with a lipidocolloid wound contact layer (UrgoTul) in the treatment of acute wounds.

Authors:  Franck David; Jean-Louis Wurtz; Nicolas Breton; Olivier Bisch; Philippe Gazeu; Jean-Charles Kerihuel; Odile Guibon
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.315

9.  Pressure-Sensitive Tissue Adhesion and Biodegradation of Viscoelastic Polymer Blends.

Authors:  John L Daristotle; Shadden T Zaki; Lung W Lau; Omar B Ayyub; Massi Djouini; Priya Srinivasan; Metecan Erdi; Anthony D Sandler; Peter Kofinas
Journal:  ACS Appl Mater Interfaces       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 9.229

Review 10.  Health economic benefits of cyanoacrylate skin protectants in the management of superficial skin lesions.

Authors:  Kevin Y Woo
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2014-03-16       Impact factor: 3.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.