Amione P, Ricci E, Topo F, Izzo L, Pirovano R, Rega V, Cocci C, Masina M
Vulnera, Clinica Vulnologica, Torino, Italy.
J Wound Care. 2005 Sep;14(8):365-70. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2005.14.8.26819.
The primary objective was to assess dressing delamination and the ensuing potential consequences during wear and/or removal, as well as the effect of residue remaining in the ulcer following foam breakdown.
In this prospective multicentre study, 32 patients with a grade II or III pressure ulcer were randomised to receive either Allevyn Adhesive or Biatain Adhesive dressing. The performance of the dressings was assessed over seven dressing changes or a maximum of six weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients with at least one delaminated dressing (delamination being defined as the falling apart of a dressing during wear or removal, or the presence of residue from the dressing in the ulcer).
Allevyn Adhesive was significantly less likely to delaminate than Biatain Adhesive: 83% of patients given Biatain Adhesive had a dressing that delaminated compared with 14% for Allevyn Adhesive (p = 0.014). Furthermore, a greater proportion of the Biatain Adhesive dressings delaminated compared with the Allevyn Adhesive dressings: 50% versus 4% (p < 0.001). Allevyn Adhesive performed significantly better in the following parameters: handling exudate (p = 0.044), comfort (p = 0.007), ease of application (p = 0.004), conformability during application (p = 0.003) and removal (p < 0.0001), and adherence to the skin during application (p = 0.003) and prior to removal (p = 0.011). Three patients given Allevyn Adhesive (21%) reported three adverse events; six patients given Biatain Adhesive (33%) reported eight adverse events.
Allevyn Adhesive is effective and well tolerated in the management of pressure ulcers and less likely to delaminate than Biatain Adhesive.
主要目的是评估在穿戴和/或移除过程中敷料分层及随之而来的潜在后果，以及泡沫破裂后溃疡中残留物质的影响。
在这项前瞻性多中心研究中，32例患有II级或III级压疮的患者被随机分配接受爱立敷粘性敷料或保而防粘性敷料。在七次更换敷料或最长六周的时间内评估敷料的性能。主要疗效变量是至少有一次敷料分层的患者比例（分层定义为敷料在穿戴或移除过程中散开，或溃疡中存在来自敷料的残留物质）。
爱立敷粘性敷料分层的可能性明显低于保而防粘性敷料：使用保而防粘性敷料的患者中有83%的敷料发生分层，而使用爱立敷粘性敷料的患者中这一比例为14%（p = 0.014）。此外，与爱立敷粘性敷料相比，保而防粘性敷料分层的比例更高：分别为50%和4%（p < 0.001）。爱立敷粘性敷料在以下参数方面表现明显更好：处理渗液（p = 0.044）、舒适度（p = 0.007）、易于应用（p = 0.004）、应用过程中的贴合度（p = 0.003）和移除（p < 0.0001），以及应用过程中（p = 0.003）和移除前（p = 0.011）对皮肤的粘附性。使用爱立敷粘性敷料的3例患者（21%）报告了3起不良事件；使用保而防粘性敷料的6例患者（33%）报告了8起不良事件。
爱立敷粘性敷料在压疮管理中有效且耐受性良好，比分层的可能性比保而防粘性敷料低。
