Publication search

Aim:

Coating of wound dressings may prevent their adherence to the wound surface which otherwise would disrupt the wound bed and destroy newly formed, healthy tissue on removal. This happens for example often with simple gauze pad. We have evaluated the adhesion disposition of aluminium-coated dressings in vitro.

Method:

Three aluminium-coated dressings* were tested. For measurement of the adhesion disposition, a gelatine-based tissue substitute with fibrinogen/thrombin layer was prepared. Dressing samples were cut corresponding to 3x4cm and fixed to a plaster with holding noose for the force gauge. Only the dressing area posing the padding zone was employed for testing. Cotton gauze was treated in the same manner and used as positive control. Evaluation of the adhesion disposition was done by measurement of the force necessary to remove the dressing from the tissue substitute.

Results / Discussion:

Significantly lower removal forces were needed to detach the dressing samples* from the tissue substitute compared to the positive control cotton gauze. The following order of removal forces for the different dressings was found: cotton gauze (0.72N) >> compress (0.11N) > trachea compress (0.07N) > sheet (0.03N). In accordance, the adhesion disposition determined for the aluminium-coated dressings* was significantly lower than that of cotton gauze pads.

Conclusion:

The adhesion disposition of dressings with an aluminium coating could be quantified and evaluated using a special tissue substitute. It could be shown that the aluminium-coated dressings* tested demonstrated a significantly lower adhesion than simple cotton gauze pads.

Aim:

To compare the efficacy of 2 products in managing slough and hyperkeratosis. Outcome measures included visible effect, treatment time, patient and clinician feedback.

Method:

Patients with lower limb wounds and hyperkeratosis were treated in a wound clinic with either a debridement pad or a debridement cloth. Outcomes were recorded over 3-weeks. Continuing treatment plans were documented at week 4.

Results / Discussion:

Using the debridement pad clinicians noted an immediate removal of slough/hyperkeratosis along with a ’deep clean’ effect in all cases. Clinicians felt a smaller option would be useful for some wounds. Clinicians remarked on a ’film’ or ’froth’ left in the wound/limb with the debridement cloth. A difficulty with getting into deeper areas of the wound was also noted. 1 patient did express willingness to continue with the product and reported ease of use. In response to the initial results, clinical evidence and NICE guidance, the decision was made to stop the evaluation and include debridement pads on the woundcare formularly.

Conclusion:

Whilst there was some improvement reported with the use of a debridement cloth, there was a visible imporvement for all cases with the debridement pad. This has led to improved patient satisfaction, influenced clinical practice and formulary inclusion.