No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: The search for an ideal Hypospadias repair dressing continues. We aimed to develop a hypoallergenic optimized biocompatible dressing (BD) Method: BD with a multi-layered structure of hydrophilic treated Polypropylene with three-layered technologies; Absorbent -Spun lace Hydroentanglement of polyester/viscose blend, outer Polypropylene, Polyester, Acrylic, and Spandex, with super Absorbent Polymer and Acrylic adhesive. Wistar rat abdominal wound model was divided into two groups: Control (normal gauze dressing with adhesive) and Study (BD). The physical properties and wound characteristics were compared.Results: Average mass: thickness of BD was 626.7±5.6g m -2 : 2.6±0.015 mm. Absorption was 1425.2±127.6%. Percentage desorption of solution A from dressings at 24:40h was 395.0±21.1%:1335.2±101.4%. BD was hydrophilic with no particles/residue after immersion and pH neutral. The average air permeability was 11.6±1.6 cm 3 /cm 2 /sec. The tensile force was 200N-220N with an extension on the breaking point at 24mm. BD was superior for ease of removability on Day 6(p=0.012) and sticking quality(p=0.036), absorption(p=0.036), ease of removability(p=0.036), and sustenance (p=0.030) on Day 10. BD dressing demonstrated better wound healing (p=0.015) and decreased redness (p=0.002) on Day 10. Histopathological healing was better with BD on Day 14(p=0.025) and Day 20 (p=0.034) Conclusion: BD demonstrated better desirable physical and wound healing qualities with less in ammation compared with control normal dressing.

No abstract

Purpose: The search for an ideal Hypospadias repair dressing continues. We aimed to develop a hypoallergenic optimized biocompatible dressing (BD) Method: BD with a multi-layered structure of hydrophilic treated Polypropylene with three-layered technologies; Absorbent -Spun lace Hydroentanglement of polyester/viscose blend, outer Polypropylene, Polyester, Acrylic, and Spandex, with super Absorbent Polymer and Acrylic adhesive. Wistar rat abdominal wound model was divided into two groups: Control (normal gauze dressing with adhesive) and Study (BD). The physical properties and wound characteristics were compared. Results: Average mass: thickness of BD was 626.7±5.6g m-2: 2.6±0.015 mm. Absorption was 1425.2±127.6%. Percentage desorption of solution A from dressings at 24:40h was 395.0±21.1%:1335.2±101.4%. BD was hydrophilic with no particles/residue after immersion and pH neutral. The average air permeability was 11.6±1.6 cm3/cm2/sec. The tensile force was 200N-220N with an extension on the breaking point at 24mm. BD was superior for ease of removability on Day 6(p=0.012) and sticking quality(p=0.036), absorption(p=0.036), ease of removability(p=0.036), and sustenance (p=0.030) on Day 10. BD dressing demonstrated better wound healing (p=0.015) and decreased redness (p=0.002) on Day 10. Histopathological healing was better with BD on Day 14(p=0.025) and Day 20 (p=0.034) Conclusion: BD demonstrated better desirable physical and wound healing qualities with less inflammation compared with control normal dressing.