An evaluation of the skin stripping of wound dressing adhesives

Waring, Mike; Bielfeldt, S.; Mätzold, Katja; Wilhelm, Klaus‐Peter; Butcher, Martyn

doi:10.12968/jowc.2011.20.9.412

Cited by 51 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In these studies, control groups were treated with petrolatum‐impregnated WCL dressings, whose performances might be inferior to that of lipidocolloid WCL dressings. Nevertheless, numerous experimental studies conducted in healthy volunteers support low induced pain and skin irritation when removing silicone‐coated dressings, a conclusion reinforced by the results of the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Silicone is biocompatible, and as it is a solid, there is no risk of it being absorbed into secondary dressings while its micro‐perforations help to drain excessive wound fluids away from the wound bed. In addition, as a result of the gentle but secure adhesive properties of silicone, dressings coated with this compound will remain firmly in place but can still be easily removed without damaging the wound bed or the peri‐wound skin, thus minimising pain to the patient . The very first, and still most widely used, silicone WCL dressing is Mepitel, supplied by Molnlycke Health Care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…A key feature of the dressing is the soft silicon adhesive which reduced potential for pain and skin trauma when the dressing was lifted. According to the study by Waring et al (27),. lifting and reapplying the sacral dressing used in this study did not cause skin stripping and impairment of the skin's barrier function.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking the pressure off in the Emergency Department: evaluation of the prophylactic application of a low shear, soft silicon sacral dressing on high risk medical patients

Cubit

McNally

Lopez

2012

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pressure injuries are key clinical indicators of care standard. In Australia, pressure injuries increase length of hospital stay by 4.31 and cost $285 million annually. This pilot study examined the effectiveness of sacral dressing in reducing the prevalence of pressure injuries in older, high-risk patients. A non randomised one-sample experimental design was used in this study comprising of four phases. Of the 51 patients recruited to the study, one patient developed a sacral pressure injury compared to six patients identified in a known group with similar demographics who were not approached to participate in the study. The results indicated that patients in the known group were 5.4 times more likely to develop a pressure injury than the intervention group. Findings suggest that applying a protective sacral dressing with a low shear backing as part of a simple standardised prevention injury prevention regime commencing in the Emergency Department was beneficial in the prevention of pressure injury in older 'at high risk' medical patients.

show abstract

“…This was first done by Dykes et al (15), who used a human volunteer model to quantify the stratum corneum removal and peel force of dressing removal by different adhesive dressings. This model in relation to evaluation of wound dressing causing disruption to the skin barrier was further developed (in terms of more accurate and quantitative methodology for skin damage evaluation) by Waring et al (16), and has proved extremely useful in differentiating wound dressings in terms of the damage that they cause.…”

Section: Animal Models Of Wound Healingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models of wound healing: an emphasis on clinical studies

Wilhelm

Wilhelm²,

Bielfeldt³

2016

Skin Research and Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The healing of wounds has always provided challenges for the medical community whether chronic or acute. Understanding the processes which enable wounds to heal is primarily carried out by the use of models, in vitro, animal and human. It is generally accepted that the use of human models offers the best opportunity to understand the factors that influence wound healing as well as to evaluate efficacy of treatments applied to wounds. Objectives: The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the different methodologies that are currently used to experimentally induce wounds of various depths in human volunteers and examines the information that may be gained from them. Methods: There is a number of human volunteer healing models available varying in their invasiveness to reflect the different possible depth levels of wounds.Results: Currently available wound healing models include sequential tape stripping, suction blister, abrasion, laser, dermatome, and biopsy techniques. The various techniques can be utilized to induce wounds of variable depth, from removing solely the stratum corneum barrier, the epidermis to even splitthickness or full thickness wounds. Conclusion: Depending on the study objective, a number of models exist to study wound healing in humans. These models provide efficient and reliable results to evaluate treatment modalities. I N VITRO studies and animal models have provided useful information for many breakthroughs and medical advances. However, these are not always appropriate and in many cases are inadequate for discovering the actual pathology responsible. While animal models are suitable for many skin disorders and diseases, they do have their limitations when wound healing is being investigated. The complex biological pathway that occurs during wound healing is not always mirrored in animal models and human models need to be considered. In the case of chronic wound pathology, human models are not always good predictors but they do provide a good understanding of acute wound pathology. Because of the difficulty in obtaining suitable volunteers with chronic wounds and incorporating them into a study, human acute wound models provide the best opportunity to understand the wound healing process and the performance of different products that assist and promote wound healing. This paper evaluates the different wound healing models and discusses the potential for these models to be suitable predictors of wound healing.

show abstract

An evaluation of the skin stripping of wound dressing adhesives

Abstract: This project was funded by a grant from Mölnlycke Healthcare Ltd.

Cited by 51 publications

References 36 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

Taking the pressure off in the Emergency Department: evaluation of the prophylactic application of a low shear, soft silicon sacral dressing on high risk medical patients

Models of wound healing: an emphasis on clinical studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About