A comparison of ZenodermR with DuoDERM ER in the treatment of split skin graft donor sites

Tan, Swee T.; Roberts, Renee; Sinclair, S.

doi:10.1016/0007-1226(93)90072-j

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results for the outcomes of pain 34,35 and rates of infection 15,33–35 suggest that hydrocolloids are not particularly superior to other moist products.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of moist wound‐healing dressings in the management of split‐thickness skin graft donor sites: a systematic review

Wiechula

2003

Int J of Nursing Practice

135

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the best available evidence related to the post-harvest management of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites. Studies included in the review were those involving patients of any age examining interventions relating to the post-harvest management of STSG donors and were intra-individual or randomized controlled trials. All studies were checked for methodological quality, and data were extracted using a data extraction tool. Many studies were combined in meta-analysis. The present report concerns studies examining moist and non-moist wound-healing dressings. Broad comparisons of moist wound-healing dressings against traditional non-moist dressings favoured moist wound-healing approaches in terms of healing rates, pain and infection. In comparing dressings within and between moist wound-healing dressing groups, the lack of studies of sufficient quality prevented determining a 'best dressing' for STSG donors. Moist wound-healing products have distinct clinical advantages over non-moist products in the management of STSG donors. There is a strong case for further head-to-head studies comparing products within the moist wound-healing group.

show abstract

“…The results for the outcomes of pain 34,35 and rates of infection 15,33–35 suggest that hydrocolloids are not particularly superior to other moist products.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of moist wound‐healing dressings in the management of split‐thickness skin graft donor sites: a systematic review

Wiechula

2003

Int J of Nursing Practice

135

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a prospective randomised controlled study Tan et al (25) compared Zenoderm, an acrylamide gel sheet containing a polysaccharide and a phospholipid, with Granuflex/Duoderm E in the treatment of split skin graft donor areas in 64 patients. Patient comfort was similar in the two groups but by the tenth postoperative day, 97% of wounds dressed with the hydrocolloid had healed compared with 75% of those dressed with Zenoderm ( P = 0·02).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrocolloid dressings in the management of acute wounds: a review of the literature

Thomas

2008

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of the literature suggests that the application of self-adhesive hydrocolloid dressings, most commonly associated with the treatment of ulcerative conditions such as pressure ulcers and leg ulcers, may also offer benefits in the management of acute wounds of all types, for example decreasing healing times of donor sites by about 40% compared with traditional treatments. Healing times of superficial traumatic injuries and surgical wounds are similarly enhanced but in the treatment of burns, the principal benefit appears to be a reduction in wound pain, an effect that has also been reported in virtually all other wound types. The impermeable nature of hydrocolloids provides a protective covering to the wound, permitting washing or showering while helping to prevent the spread of pathogenic microorganisms. There also appear to be significant cost-benefits associated with the use of hydrocolloids. In recent years, hydrocolloid dressings have been replaced by other products such as foams for the treatment of more heavily exuding wounds but for more lightly exuding wounds they still offer many practical advantages and as such will undoubtedly continue to meet an important need in wound management practice.

show abstract

“…8 Similarly, 97% of wounds treated with DuoDERM were completely healed by 10 days compared with 75% of wounds treated with the hydrogel Zenoderm. 25 In addition, donor areas treated with hydrocolloids had a smoother, more even appearance when compared to sites treated with calcium alginate dressings. 26 Consistent with previous clinical studies, 6–8,25,27 we showed that DuoDERM elicited the fastest rate of healing while being moderate in price, easy to use, and resistant to infection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evaluation of Six Split-thickness Skin Graft Donor-site Dressing Materials in a Swine Model

Masella

Balent

Carlson

et al. 2013

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Numerous dressings for split-thickness skin graft donor sites are commercially available with no conclusive evidence-based consensus regarding the optimal dressing choice. This study was conducted to identify which of 5 commonly used materials promotes wound healing most effectively for use on split-thickness donor sites in comparison with our standard dressing, Xeroform (petrolatum gauze).Methods:Twenty-four partial-thickness wounds were created on the backs of 4 pigs using a dermatome. Wounds (n = 4 per dressing type per pig) were treated with Xeroform, Opsite (polyurethane film), Kaltostat ( calcium sodium alginate), DuoDERM (hydrocolloid), Aquacel (hydrofiber), and Mepilex (silicone foam). Full-thickness skin samples were excised at 3 or 5 days and evaluated histologically for reepithelialization and inflammation. Comparisons also included incidence of infection, ease of use, and cost analyses.Results:DuoDERM elicited the greatest percent reepithelialization (81%) and Mepilex the lowest (33%) after 3 days (P = 0.004). All dressings demonstrated complete reepithelialization except Mepilex (85%) at 5 days. There were no infections and inflammation was mild among all treatments. Mepilex was easiest to use, whereas Aquacel, Kaltostat, and Opsite were most difficult (P = 0.03). Xeroform was most cost-effective and Aquacel most expensive. Combined scoring revealed DuoDERM = Xeroform > Opsite = Mepilex > Kaltostat > Aquacel.Conclusions:DuoDERM and Xeroform were most effective overall. DuoDERM tended to outperform all dressings in reepithelialization at 3 days, while Xeroform was least expensive, easy to use, and demonstrated rapid reepithelialization. These findings suggest that Xeroform may be preferred for use on large donor-site areas. DuoDERM may be more appropriate for small donor sites when healing time is a priority.

show abstract

A comparison of ZenodermR with DuoDERM ER in the treatment of split skin graft donor sites

Cited by 15 publications

References 7 publications

The use of moist wound‐healing dressings in the management of split‐thickness skin graft donor sites: a systematic review

The use of moist wound‐healing dressings in the management of split‐thickness skin graft donor sites: a systematic review

Hydrocolloid dressings in the management of acute wounds: a review of the literature

Evaluation of Six Split-thickness Skin Graft Donor-site Dressing Materials in a Swine Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About