Woodley D T, Kim Y H
Department of Dermatology, Stanford (Calif) University School of Medicine 94305.
Arch Dermatol. 1992 Oct;128(10):1354-7.
The assessment of cutaneous wound healing in humans has been hampered by the inability to evaluate multiple wounds with identical origins, treatment histories, and sizes. There have been no double-blind wound healing studies in humans that compared one wound dressing with another. The purpose of this study was to determine if identical suction blister wounds could serve as a model to evaluate and compare wound healing and overall cosmetic appearance of wounds treated with commercially available adhesive bandages. In a double-blind study, we compared superficial skin wounds of identical depth and diameter, created on the forearms of five human subjects by means of a suction blister device. The wounds were covered by two common, commercially available adhesive bandages or a copolymer of polyurethane membrane type of wound dressing. We compared the degree of reepithelialization, erythema, skin depression, and overall cosmetic appearance of wounds with respect to the specific adhesive bandages used.
The wounds covered with the copolymer of polyurethane membrane were judged to have better overall appearance and advanced reepithelialization compared with identical wounds covered by the other wound dressings. With the use of x5 magnification for viewing the wounds on the final day of evaluation (between days 18 and 22), the wounds treated with the copolymer of polyurethane membrane were judged to be the least depressed wounds in fields of identical wounds in the three subjects studied. Concordance between the evaluators' "blinded" assessments was uniform, and no discrepancy between the evaluators' assessments occurred at any of the time points.
Identical wounds created with a suction blistering device can be used reliably to detect differences between the performances of wound dressings in healing superficial wounds. Superficial cutaneous wounds covered with a copolymer of polyurethane dressing demonstrated a superior rate of reepithelialization, less depression, and a better overall cosmetic appearance than wounds covered with two commercially available adhesive bandages.
由于无法评估具有相同起源、治疗史和大小的多个伤口,人类皮肤伤口愈合的评估受到了阻碍。目前尚无比较一种伤口敷料与另一种伤口敷料的双盲人体伤口愈合研究。本研究的目的是确定相同的抽吸性水疱伤口是否可作为一种模型,用于评估和比较用市售粘性绷带治疗的伤口的愈合情况和整体外观。在一项双盲研究中,我们比较了通过抽吸性水疱装置在五名人类受试者前臂上制造的深度和直径相同的浅表皮肤伤口。伤口分别用两种常见的市售粘性绷带或一种聚氨酯膜型共聚物伤口敷料覆盖。我们比较了使用特定粘性绷带的伤口的再上皮化程度、红斑、皮肤凹陷和整体外观。
与用其他伤口敷料覆盖的相同伤口相比,用聚氨酯膜共聚物覆盖的伤口被判定具有更好的整体外观和更先进的再上皮化。在评估的最后一天(第18至22天之间)使用5倍放大倍数观察伤口时,在研究的三名受试者中,用聚氨酯膜共聚物治疗的伤口在相同伤口区域被判定为凹陷程度最小。评估者“盲法”评估之间的一致性是一致的,并且在任何时间点评估者的评估之间都没有差异。
用抽吸性水疱装置制造的相同伤口可可靠地用于检测伤口敷料在愈合浅表伤口方面的性能差异。与用两种市售粘性绷带覆盖的伤口相比,用聚氨酯敷料共聚物覆盖的浅表皮肤伤口表现出更高的再上皮化率、更少的凹陷和更好的整体外观。