A comparative study of silicone net dressing and paraffin gauze dressing in skin-grafted sites

Platt, A.J.; Phipps, A.; Judkins, K.C.

doi:10.1016/0305-4179(96)00035-6

Cited by 52 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pain severity is a commonly used outcome measure in the clinical evaluation of WCLs. 4,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] In the present study, the main outcome was the frequency and percentage of patients experiencing a pain level <30 mm on a 100 mm VAS at day 3 (V2) immediately after the first allocated dressing had been removed. This pain parameter was selected based on previous research that demonstrates a likelihood of patients recording "moderate" or "severe" pain on a 4-point categorical pain scale scoring above 30 mm on a 100 mm VAS.…”

Section: Main Study Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

David¹,

Wurtz²,

Breton

et al. 2017

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wound contact layer (WCL) dressings are intended to protect tissue during the healing process. A randomised controlled trial was undertaken to compare 2 such dressings. Outpatients with acute wounds were randomly allocated to treatment with either a soft silicone‐coated WCL (intervention group, n = 59) or a lipidocolloid‐impregnated WCL (control group, n = 62). At the first dressing removal (day 3), 89.8% of patients in the intervention group experienced non‐painful dressing removal (defined as a pain rating <30 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale), compared with 73.6% of patients in the control group (P = .017) (per protocol population). At day 21, wounds were considered as healed in 66.1% of patients in the intervention group compared with 43.5% in the control group (P = .012) (intention‐to‐treat population). Both dressings were well tolerated and rated highly in terms of in‐use characteristics, although the soft silicone‐coated WCL was rated significantly higher than the lipidocolloid‐impregnated WCL in terms of its ability to remain in place (P= .016). The results indicate that the soft silicone‐coated WCL is suitable for the management of acute wounds as it can minimise dressing‐associated pain and support healing.

show abstract

Section: Main Study Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Pain severity is a commonly used outcome measure in the clinical evaluation of WCLs . In the present study, the main outcome was the frequency and percentage of patients experiencing a pain level <30 mm on a 100 mm VAS at day 3 (V2) immediately after the first allocated dressing had been removed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

David¹,

Wurtz²,

Breton

et al. 2017

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…По вязки с технологией Safetac* сводят к минимуму травматизацию тканей и боль при смене повязок. Перевязочные средства Tendra® продемонстриро вали свое преимущество, обеспечивая минималь ную травматизацию раны и окружающей рану ко жи, в сочетании с минимизацией болевого синд рома при смене повязок [4,9,12].…”

Section: сахарный диабетunclassified

“…Так как для адекватной работы повязки необходим плотный контакт с поверхностью, использование Mepitel ограничивается относительно ровными ана томическими областями. Эффективность Mepitel и Mepilex подтверждена целым рядом клинических исследований [2][3][4]7,[12][13][14]16].…”

Section: лечениеunclassified

Sovremennye aspekty mestnogo lecheniya khronicheskikh ran nizhnikh konechnostey u bol'nykh sakharnym diabetom

Khramilin¹

2005

Diabetes mellitus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Chang viscoelastic window concept adapted for low resin content silicone pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) with differing amounts of isopropyl myristate (IPM) [34]. the wound care market by Dow Corning Corporation in the 1990s and similar materials are offered today by many silicone suppliers under a variety of brand names [36][37][38]. In a segment that was historically controlled primarily by acrylic adhesives, the tacky gel technology concept was disruptive by securing wound dressings while providing gentle adhesion upon removal.…”

Section: Silicone Soft Skin Adhesive: Description and Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silicone Adhesives in Medical Applications

Schalau¹,

Bobenrieth²,

Huber³

et al. 2018

Applied Adhesive Bonding in Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter will review silicone based adhesive technologies, applications and characterization, emphasizing those self-adhesive materials often used in skin contact applications including transdermal drug delivery and wound care device attachment. The silicone pressure sensitive adhesives used in transdermal applications today are thermoplastic and based on silicone polymer and silicate resin chemistries. Previous research has suggested that some drugs readily diffuse through silicone adhesives, prompting their use in transdermal patches. A recently developed silicone acrylate hybrid adhesive technology combines polyacrylate and silicone molecular structures to form a stable, semi-interpenetrated network. This technology provides ease in formulating transdermal drug delivery systems through improved physical stability over simple blends of acrylate and silicone adhesives. The ability of some silicone adhesives to affix bandages without disrupting the wound bed upon removal has led to the wide acceptance of a third type of silicone adhesive technology that unlike the aforementioned thermoplastic materials is thermoset. This adhesive form is based on a platinum catalyzed, cross-linking reaction between vinyl functional and silicon-hydride functional silicone polymers. The various silicone adhesive types have been characterized via classical measurements of physical performances. Rheological techniques elucidated herein provide further understanding of the structure-property relationships previously unavailable using classical characterization approaches.

show abstract

A comparative study of silicone net dressing and paraffin gauze dressing in skin-grafted sites

Cited by 52 publications

References 3 publications

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

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

Sovremennye aspekty mestnogo lecheniya khronicheskikh ran nizhnikh konechnostey u bol'nykh sakharnym diabetom

Silicone Adhesives in Medical Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About