Literature DB >> 32869507

The biomechanical efficacy of a dressing with a soft cellulose fluff core in prophylactic use.

Amit Gefen1, Maja Krämer2, Maik Brehm3, Sören Burckardt3.   

Abstract

In this work, we developed an experimental-computational analysis framework which facilitated objective, quantitative, standardised, methodological, and systematic comparisons between the biomechanical efficacies of two fundamentally different dressing technologies for pressure ulcer prevention: A dressing technology based on cellulose fibres used as the core matrix was evaluated vs the conventional silicone-foam dressing design concept, which was represented by multiple products which belong in this category. Using an anatomically-realistic computer (finite element) model of a supine female patient to whom the different sacral dressings have been applied virtually, we quantitatively evaluated the efficacy of the different dressings by means of a set of 3 biomechanical indices: The protective efficacy index, the protective endurance, and the prophylactic trade-off design parameter. Prior rigorous experimental measurements of the physical and mechanical behaviours and properties of each tested dressing, including tensile, compressive, and friction properties, have been conducted and used as inputs for the computer modelling. Each dressing was evaluated for its tissue protection performances at a new (from the package) state, as well as after exposure to moisture conditions simulating wet bedsheets. Our results demonstrated that the dressing with the fluff core is at least as-good as silicone-foams but importantly, provides the best balance between protective performances at its "new" condition and the performance after being exposed to moisture. We conclude that preventative dressings are not equal in their prophylactic performances, but rather, the base technology, the ingredients, and their arrangement in the dressing structure shape the quality of the delivered tissue protection.
© 2020 Medicalhelplines.com Inc (3M) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  finite element model; moisture; pressure injury; pressure ulcer; prevention

Year:  2020        PMID: 32869507      PMCID: PMC7948878          DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13489

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


  32 in total

1.  Assessment of mechanical conditions in sub-dermal tissues during sitting: a combined experimental-MRI and finite element approach.

Authors:  Eran Linder-Ganz; Noga Shabshin; Yacov Itzchak; Amit Gefen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2006-08-21       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Stress relaxation of porcine gluteus muscle subjected to sudden transverse deformation as related to pressure sore modeling.

Authors:  Avital Palevski; Ittai Glaich; Sigal Portnoy; Eran Linder-Ganz; Amit Gefen
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.097

3.  Measuring Tensile Strength to Better Establish Protective Capacity of Sacral Prophylactic Dressings Over 7 Days of Laboratory Aging.

Authors:  Joshua N Burton; Abigail G Fredrickson; Cassidee Capunay; Laurel Tanner; Craig Oberg; Nick Santamaria; Amit Gefen; Evan Call
Journal:  Adv Skin Wound Care       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 2.347

4.  Effects of humidity on skin friction against medical textiles as related to prevention of pressure injuries.

Authors:  Danit Schwartz; Yana Katsman Magen; Ayelet Levy; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Clinical and biomechanical perspectives on pressure injury prevention research: The case of prophylactic dressings.

Authors:  A Gefen; J Kottner; N Santamaria
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 2.063

6.  Device-related pressure ulcers: SECURE prevention.

Authors:  Amit Gefen; Paulo Alves; Guido Ciprandi; Fiona Coyer; Catherine T Milne; Karen Ousey; Norihiko Ohura; Nicola Waters; Peter Worsley
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 2.072

Review 7.  The biomechanics of heel ulcers.

Authors:  Amit Gefen
Journal:  J Tissue Viability       Date:  2010-06-26       Impact factor: 2.932

8.  An integrated experimental-computational study of the microclimate under dressings applied to intact weight-bearing skin.

Authors:  Dafna Schwartz; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 3.315

9.  Assessment of the Biomechanical Effects of Prophylactic Sacral Dressings on Tissue Loads: A Computational Modeling Analysis.

Authors:  Ayelet Levy; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.629

10.  An overview of polyurethane foams in higher specification foam mattresses.

Authors:  Esa Soppi; Juha Lehtiö; Hannu Saarinen
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.629

View more
  4 in total

1.  The biomechanical efficacy of a dressing with a soft cellulose fluff core in prophylactic use.

Authors:  Amit Gefen; Maja Krämer; Maik Brehm; Sören Burckardt
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  The biomechanical efficacy of a hydrogel-based dressing in preventing facial medical device-related pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Angela Grigatti; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2021-10-08       Impact factor: 3.099

3.  Evaluation of facial tissue stresses under medical devices post application of a cyanoacrylate liquid skin protectant: An integrated experimental-computational study.

Authors:  Raz Margi; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2021-08-17       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  What makes a hydrogel-based dressing advantageous for the prevention of medical device-related pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Angela Grigatti; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 3.315

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.