Literature DB >> 22883604

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

Hajime Matsumura1, Ryutaro Imai, Niyaz Ahmatjan, Yukiko Ida, Masahide Gondo, Dai Shibata, Katsueki Wanatabe.   

Abstract

In recent years, adhesive wound dressings have been increasingly applied postoperatively because of their ease of use as they can be kept in place without having to cut and apply surgical tapes and they can cover a wound securely. However, if a wound dressing strongly adheres to the wound, a large amount of stratum corneum is removed from the newly formed epithelium or healthy periwound skin. Various types of adhesives are used on adhesive wound dressings and the extent of skin damage depends on how much an adhesive sticks to the wound or skin surface. We quantitatively determined and compared the amount of stratum corneum removed by eight different wound dressings including polyurethane foam using acrylic adhesive, silicone-based adhesive dressing, composite hydrocolloid and self-adhesive polyurethane foam in healthy volunteers. The results showed that wound dressings with silicone adhesive and self-adhesive polyurethane foam removed less stratum corneum, whereas composite hydrocolloid and polyurethane foam using acrylic adhesive removed more stratum corneum.
© 2012 The Authors. International Wound Journal © 2012 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adhesive wound dressings; Dressing removal; Periwound skin; Stratum corneum; Wound dressing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22883604      PMCID: PMC7950515          DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01061.x

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


  8 in total

1.  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 2.  Management of venous leg ulcers.

Authors:  Deborah A Simon; Francis P Dix; Charles N McCollum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-05

3.  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

4.  The palliative management of fungating malignant wounds.

Authors:  P Grocott
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.072

5.  A functional study of the skin barrier to evaporative water loss by means of repeated cellophane-tape stripping.

Authors:  P G van der Valk; H I Maibach
Journal:  Clin Exp Dermatol       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.470

6.  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

7.  Contact sensitivity in patients with leg ulcerations: a North American study.

Authors:  Liliana Saap; Simone Fahim; Emily Arsenault; Melanie Pratt; Tad Pierscianowski; Vincent Falanga; Anita Pedvis-Leftick
Journal:  Arch Dermatol       Date:  2004-10

8.  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

  8 in total
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  In situ Fabrication of Nano ZnO/BCM Biocomposite Based on MA Modified Bacterial Cellulose Membrane for Antibacterial and Wound Healing.

Authors:  Zhenghui Luo; Jie Liu; Hai Lin; Xi Ren; Hao Tian; Yi Liang; Weiyi Wang; Yuan Wang; Meifang Yin; Yuesheng Huang; Jiaping Zhang
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2020-01-06

3.  Comparison of Medical Adhesive Tapes in Patients at Risk of Facial Skin Trauma under Anesthesia.

Authors:  Ling Antonia Zeng; Sui An Lie; Shin Yuet Chong
Journal:  Anesthesiol Res Pract       Date:  2016-06-12

4.  Chitosan and β-Cyclodextrin-epichlorohydrin Polymer Composite Film as a Plant Healthcare Material for Carbendazim-Controlled Release to Protect Rape against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary.

Authors:  Delong Wang; Mingchen Jia; Lanying Wang; Shuang Song; Juntao Feng; Xing Zhang
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2017-03-26       Impact factor: 3.623

5.  Enhanced Skin Adhesive Property of Hydrophobically Modified Poly(vinyl alcohol) Films.

Authors:  Xi Chen; Tetsushi Taguchi
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2020-01-10

6.  Compliance of a microstructured, soft sampling device for transcutaneous blood gas monitoring.

Authors:  Ragnar Seton; Greger Thornell; Anders Persson
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2020-10-05       Impact factor: 4.036

7.  A wearable wound moisture sensor as an indicator for wound dressing change: an observational study of wound moisture and status.

Authors:  Stephen D Milne; Ihab Seoudi; Hanadi Al Hamad; Talal K Talal; Anzila A Anoop; Niloofar Allahverdi; Zain Zakaria; Robert Menzies; Patricia Connolly
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 3.315

8.  Improving Vascular Access Dressing Integrity in the Acute Care Setting: A Quality Improvement Project.

Authors:  Michelle DeVries; Jill Sarbenoff; Nancy Scott; Margaret Wickert; Lisa Marie Hayes
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2021 Sep-Oct 01       Impact factor: 1.970

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.