Literature DB >> 22533468

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

Hajime Matsumura1, Niyaz Ahmatjan, Yukiko Ida, Ryutaro Imai, Katsueki Wanatabe.   

Abstract

The removal of adhesive wound dressings from the wound surface involves a risk of damaging the intact stratum corneum and regenerating epithelium. Pain associated with the removal of wound dressings is a major issue for patients and medical personnel. Recently, wound dressings coated with a silicone adhesive have been developed to reduce such skin damage and pain on removal and they have received good evaluation in various clinical settings. However, there is neither a standard method to quantify whether or not the integrity of the stratum corneum and regenerating epithelium is retained or if both structures are damaged by the removal of wound dressings, nor are there standardised values with which to assess skin damage. We applied six different types of adhesive wound dressing on plain copy paper printed with black ink by a laser printer, removed the dressings, examined the adhesive-coated surface of the wound dressings using a high-power videoscope, and examined the stripped areas. Wound dressings coated with a silicone adhesive showed significantly less detachment of the stratum corneum and regenerating epithelium, followed by those coated with polyurethane, hydrocolloid, and acrylic adhesives. The assessment method utilised in this study revealed distinct differences between wound dressing types, but less variation in the evaluation outcome of each type. This assessment method may be useful for the evaluation of adhesive wound dressings, particularly during product development. However, further studies will be needed to examine the effectiveness of this assessment method in the clinical setting because the adherent properties of polyurethane and hydrocolloid adhesives may be altered by the absorption of water from the skin.
© 2012 The Authors. International Wound Journal © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Medicalhelplines.com Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22533468      PMCID: PMC7950991          DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.00975.x

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


  13 in total

1.  The link between the peel force of adhesive dressings and subjective discomfort in volunteer subjects.

Authors:  P J Dykes; R Heggie
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.072

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

3.  A study to compare a new self-adherent soft silicone dressing with a self-adherent polymer dressing in stage II pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Sylive Maume; Dirk Van De Looverbosch; Hilde Heyman; Marco Romanelli; Andrea Ciangherotti; Sylvie Charpin
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.629

4.  An evaluation of the skin stripping of wound dressing adhesives.

Authors:  M Waring; S Bielfeldt; K Mätzold; K P Wilhelm; M Butcher
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.072

Review 5.  Mepilex Ag: an antimicrobial, absorbent foam dressing with Safetac technology.

Authors:  Simon Barrett
Journal:  Br J Nurs       Date:  2009 Nov 12-25

Review 6.  Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review.

Authors:  H M McCormack; D J Horne; S Sheather
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 7.723

7.  Evaluation of pain intensity measurement during the removal of wound dressing material using 'the PainVision™ system' for quantitative analysis of perception and pain sensation in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Hajime Matsumura; Ryutaro Imai; Masahide Gondo; Katsueki Watanabe
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 3.315

8.  The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Paul Karoly; Sanford Braver
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Investigation of adhesion of modern wound dressings: a comparative analysis of 56 different wound dressings.

Authors:  J Klode; L Schöttler; I Stoffels; A Körber; D Schadendorf; J Dissemond
Journal:  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 6.166

10.  Clinical classification of bioengineered skin use and its correlation with healing of diabetic and venous ulcers.

Authors:  Liliana J Saap; Kevin Donohue; Vincent Falanga
Journal:  Dermatol Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.398

View more
  2 in total

1.  Boronate ester cross-linked PVA hydrogels for the capture and H2O2-mediated release of active fluorophores.

Authors:  George T Williams; Adam C Sedgwick; Sajal Sen; Lauren Gwynne; Jordan E Gardiner; James T Brewster; Jennifer R Hiscock; Tony D James; A Toby A Jenkins; Jonathan L Sessler
Journal:  Chem Commun (Camb)       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 6.222

2.  A pragmatic randomised controlled clinical study to evaluate the use of silicone dressings for the treatment of skin tears.

Authors:  Kimberly LeBlanc; Kevin Woo
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 3.315

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.