Investigating the pressure-reducing effect of wound dressings

K. Matsuzaki, Kazuo Kishi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Currently, polyurethane foam dressings are commercially available from many manufacturers. However, the pressure-reducing effect is expected to differ by the formulation and combination of the main and secondary ingredients and by manufacturing method. In this study, we investigated the effects of pressure reduction using dressing materials with various structural characteristics, including polyurethane foam dressings based on the engineering point of view, focusing on the dry state. Method: Pressure was measured in a model that simulated compression on the sacral region in a decubitus position. Pressure was measured for different dressings: ten products, consisting of five types of material (polyurethane foam, hydropolymeric, Hydrofiber, hydrocolloid, and low-adherent absorbent). Results: All dressings used in this study showed significantly reduced pressure. ALLEVYN Non-Adhesive had the lowest pressure at 35.833 ± 1.155 mmHg, and DuoDERM Extra Thin CGF had the highest pressure at 66.867 ± 1.060 mmHg. The pressure of the control was 74.667 ± 1.405 mmHg. The other dressings were: ALLEVYN Adhesive: 44.233 ± 0.777 mmHg; ALLEVYN Gentle Border: 46.967 ± 1.537mmHg; Mepilex Border: 53.867 ± 0.231 mmHg; Biatain Silicone: 56.000 ± 0.520 mmHg; TIELLE: 57.267 ± 3.403 mmHg;Versiva XC: 65.900 ± 0.800 mmHg; DuoDERM CGF: 57.267 ± 1.007 mmHg; and Melolin: 53.433 ± 1.973 mmHg. Conclusion: The pressure-reducing effect of dressing differs not only by material type but also by product. That is, the pressure-reducing effect can differ even if the dressings are of the same material type, such as polyurethane foam. Our study investigated only the effect of materials and structural characteristics on the cushion of dressings in the dry state. Therefore, further investigation is needed to confirm the effect of pressure reduction by dressing to meet the conditions in the clinic. Declaration of interest: Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)512-517
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of wound care
Volume24
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Nov 1

Fingerprint

Bandages
Pressure
Wounds and Injuries
Sacrococcygeal Region
Conflict of Interest
Colloids
Silicones
polyurethane foam

Keywords

  • Foam dressing
  • Polyurethane
  • Pressure reducing
  • Pressure ulcer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing (miscellaneous)
  • Fundamentals and skills

Cite this

Investigating the pressure-reducing effect of wound dressings. / Matsuzaki, K.; Kishi, Kazuo.

In: Journal of wound care, Vol. 24, No. 11, 01.11.2015, p. 512-517.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{21e1d7370cd0434283a4f3680c3a5906,
title = "Investigating the pressure-reducing effect of wound dressings",
abstract = "Objective: Currently, polyurethane foam dressings are commercially available from many manufacturers. However, the pressure-reducing effect is expected to differ by the formulation and combination of the main and secondary ingredients and by manufacturing method. In this study, we investigated the effects of pressure reduction using dressing materials with various structural characteristics, including polyurethane foam dressings based on the engineering point of view, focusing on the dry state. Method: Pressure was measured in a model that simulated compression on the sacral region in a decubitus position. Pressure was measured for different dressings: ten products, consisting of five types of material (polyurethane foam, hydropolymeric, Hydrofiber, hydrocolloid, and low-adherent absorbent). Results: All dressings used in this study showed significantly reduced pressure. ALLEVYN Non-Adhesive had the lowest pressure at 35.833 ± 1.155 mmHg, and DuoDERM Extra Thin CGF had the highest pressure at 66.867 ± 1.060 mmHg. The pressure of the control was 74.667 ± 1.405 mmHg. The other dressings were: ALLEVYN Adhesive: 44.233 ± 0.777 mmHg; ALLEVYN Gentle Border: 46.967 ± 1.537mmHg; Mepilex Border: 53.867 ± 0.231 mmHg; Biatain Silicone: 56.000 ± 0.520 mmHg; TIELLE: 57.267 ± 3.403 mmHg;Versiva XC: 65.900 ± 0.800 mmHg; DuoDERM CGF: 57.267 ± 1.007 mmHg; and Melolin: 53.433 ± 1.973 mmHg. Conclusion: The pressure-reducing effect of dressing differs not only by material type but also by product. That is, the pressure-reducing effect can differ even if the dressings are of the same material type, such as polyurethane foam. Our study investigated only the effect of materials and structural characteristics on the cushion of dressings in the dry state. Therefore, further investigation is needed to confirm the effect of pressure reduction by dressing to meet the conditions in the clinic. Declaration of interest: Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.",
keywords = "Foam dressing, Polyurethane, Pressure reducing, Pressure ulcer",
author = "K. Matsuzaki and Kazuo Kishi",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.12968/jowc.2015.24.11.512",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "512--517",
journal = "Journal of wound care",
issn = "0969-0700",
publisher = "MA Healthcare Ltd",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Investigating the pressure-reducing effect of wound dressings

AU - Matsuzaki, K.

AU - Kishi, Kazuo

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - Objective: Currently, polyurethane foam dressings are commercially available from many manufacturers. However, the pressure-reducing effect is expected to differ by the formulation and combination of the main and secondary ingredients and by manufacturing method. In this study, we investigated the effects of pressure reduction using dressing materials with various structural characteristics, including polyurethane foam dressings based on the engineering point of view, focusing on the dry state. Method: Pressure was measured in a model that simulated compression on the sacral region in a decubitus position. Pressure was measured for different dressings: ten products, consisting of five types of material (polyurethane foam, hydropolymeric, Hydrofiber, hydrocolloid, and low-adherent absorbent). Results: All dressings used in this study showed significantly reduced pressure. ALLEVYN Non-Adhesive had the lowest pressure at 35.833 ± 1.155 mmHg, and DuoDERM Extra Thin CGF had the highest pressure at 66.867 ± 1.060 mmHg. The pressure of the control was 74.667 ± 1.405 mmHg. The other dressings were: ALLEVYN Adhesive: 44.233 ± 0.777 mmHg; ALLEVYN Gentle Border: 46.967 ± 1.537mmHg; Mepilex Border: 53.867 ± 0.231 mmHg; Biatain Silicone: 56.000 ± 0.520 mmHg; TIELLE: 57.267 ± 3.403 mmHg;Versiva XC: 65.900 ± 0.800 mmHg; DuoDERM CGF: 57.267 ± 1.007 mmHg; and Melolin: 53.433 ± 1.973 mmHg. Conclusion: The pressure-reducing effect of dressing differs not only by material type but also by product. That is, the pressure-reducing effect can differ even if the dressings are of the same material type, such as polyurethane foam. Our study investigated only the effect of materials and structural characteristics on the cushion of dressings in the dry state. Therefore, further investigation is needed to confirm the effect of pressure reduction by dressing to meet the conditions in the clinic. Declaration of interest: Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

AB - Objective: Currently, polyurethane foam dressings are commercially available from many manufacturers. However, the pressure-reducing effect is expected to differ by the formulation and combination of the main and secondary ingredients and by manufacturing method. In this study, we investigated the effects of pressure reduction using dressing materials with various structural characteristics, including polyurethane foam dressings based on the engineering point of view, focusing on the dry state. Method: Pressure was measured in a model that simulated compression on the sacral region in a decubitus position. Pressure was measured for different dressings: ten products, consisting of five types of material (polyurethane foam, hydropolymeric, Hydrofiber, hydrocolloid, and low-adherent absorbent). Results: All dressings used in this study showed significantly reduced pressure. ALLEVYN Non-Adhesive had the lowest pressure at 35.833 ± 1.155 mmHg, and DuoDERM Extra Thin CGF had the highest pressure at 66.867 ± 1.060 mmHg. The pressure of the control was 74.667 ± 1.405 mmHg. The other dressings were: ALLEVYN Adhesive: 44.233 ± 0.777 mmHg; ALLEVYN Gentle Border: 46.967 ± 1.537mmHg; Mepilex Border: 53.867 ± 0.231 mmHg; Biatain Silicone: 56.000 ± 0.520 mmHg; TIELLE: 57.267 ± 3.403 mmHg;Versiva XC: 65.900 ± 0.800 mmHg; DuoDERM CGF: 57.267 ± 1.007 mmHg; and Melolin: 53.433 ± 1.973 mmHg. Conclusion: The pressure-reducing effect of dressing differs not only by material type but also by product. That is, the pressure-reducing effect can differ even if the dressings are of the same material type, such as polyurethane foam. Our study investigated only the effect of materials and structural characteristics on the cushion of dressings in the dry state. Therefore, further investigation is needed to confirm the effect of pressure reduction by dressing to meet the conditions in the clinic. Declaration of interest: Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

KW - Foam dressing

KW - Polyurethane

KW - Pressure reducing

KW - Pressure ulcer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947069983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947069983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.12968/jowc.2015.24.11.512

DO - 10.12968/jowc.2015.24.11.512

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 512

EP - 517

JO - Journal of wound care

JF - Journal of wound care

SN - 0969-0700

IS - 11

ER -