Viamontes Louis, Jones Annie M
Wound Clinics of America, Jensen Beach, Florida, USA.
Br J Nurs. 2003 Jun;12(11 Suppl):S43-4, S46-9. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2003.12.Sup2.11326.
The primary objective of this study was to assess the skin stripping of wounds (defined as periwound skin blistering; Fowler, 1990) when treated with an adhesive hydrocellular foam dressing (Allevyn trade mark Adhesive, Smith and Nephew) and a self-adherent soft silicone foam dressing (Mepilex trade mark Border, MöInlycke Health Care). The secondary objectives were to assess wound healing, wound appearance and pain. Data were collected over one year from 403 wounds in 206 patients treated in nursing homes. At follow-up assessment, there was some evidence of skin stripping with both products - 5% (5/106) with the adhesive hydrocellular, and 4% (4/100 with the self-adherent dressing. The results of the study reveal that the closure rates achieved with the two dressings were similar, and that both dressings were equally safe in terms of skin stripping. Independent nurse evaluations highlighted the failure of the self-adherent soft silicone foam dressing to either initially adhere to the wound area, or to remain in contact for more than a few days, and frequently needed the application of additional tape to ensure adhesion. The failure of the self-adhesive soft silicone foam dressing to adhere to the periwound area was a significant deterrent to staff to use this type of dressing routinely.
本研究的主要目的是评估使用粘性水凝胶泡沫敷料（爱立敷商标，施乐辉公司）和自粘性软硅胶泡沫敷料（美皮康商标，保赫曼医疗保健公司）治疗时伤口的皮肤剥离情况（定义为伤口周围皮肤起泡；Fowler，1990）。次要目的是评估伤口愈合、伤口外观和疼痛情况。从养老院接受治疗的206名患者的403处伤口收集了为期一年的数据。在随访评估中，两种产品均有一些皮肤剥离的证据——粘性水凝胶敷料组为5%（5/106），自粘性敷料组为4%（4/100）。研究结果显示，两种敷料实现的伤口闭合率相似，且在皮肤剥离方面两种敷料同样安全。独立护士评估强调，自粘性软硅胶泡沫敷料既未能最初粘附于伤口区域，也未能在数天以上保持接触，且经常需要额外粘贴胶带以确保粘附。自粘性软硅胶泡沫敷料未能粘附于伤口周围区域是工作人员常规使用这类敷料的一个重大阻碍。
