一项关于透明吸水性丙烯酸敷料和水胶体敷料用于治疗II期和浅III期压疮的前瞻性、随机、多中心临床评估。

A prospective, randomized, multisite clinical evaluation of a transparent absorbent acrylic dressing and a hydrocolloid dressing in the management of Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers.

作者信息

Brown-Etris Marie, Milne Catherine, Orsted Heather, Gates Judy L, Netsch Debra, Punchello Marion, Couture Nancy, Albert Martine, Attrell Edie, Freyberg Julie

机构信息

Etris Associates, Inc, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

Adv Skin Wound Care. 2008 Apr;21(4):169-74. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000305429.01413.f8.

DOI:10.1097/01.ASW.0000305429.01413.f8

PMID:18385577

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical performance of a transparent absorbent acrylic dressing (3M Tegaderm Absorbent Clear Acrylic Dressing ]TAAD[; 3M Company, St Paul, MN) and a hydrocolloid dressing (HD ]DuoDERM CGF, ConvaTec, ER Squibb & Sons, Princeton, NJ[) in the management of Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers.

DESIGN

Prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative, multisite clinical evaluation. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 56 days or until their ulcer healed. At weekly intervals, investigators conducted wound assessments and dressing performance evaluations.

SETTING

Wound care clinics, home care, and long-term care.

PATIENTS

Thirty-five patients received the TAAD, and 37 received the HD.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Dressing performance assessments, patient comfort, dressing wear time, and wound healing were measured.

RESULTS

The majority of investigator assessments favored the TAAD. Considerations given included the ability to center dressings over the ulcer (P = .005), ability to assess the ulcer before (P < .001) and after (P < .001) absorption, barrier properties (P = .039), patient comfort during removal (P < .001), overall patient comfort (P = .048), conformability before (P = .026) and after (P = .001) absorption, ease of removal (P < .001), nonadherence to wound bed (P < .001), residue in the wound (P = .002), residue on periwound skin (P < .001), and odor after absorption (P = .016). Overall satisfaction favored the TAAD (P < .001), and a high value was placed on its transparent feature (P < .001). Mean (SD) wear time for the TAAD was 5.7 (2.55) days compared with 4.7 (2.29) days for the HD (P = .086). This 1-day difference in wear time was clinically noticeable by the investigators (P = .035). Wound closure for the 2 dressing groups was nearly identical (P = .9627).

CONCLUSIONS

Performance results favored the TAAD over the HD as standard treatment for Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers.

摘要

目的

比较透明吸水性丙烯酸敷料（3M Tegaderm Absorbent Clear Acrylic Dressing [TAAD]；3M公司，明尼苏达州圣保罗）和水胶体敷料（HD [DuoDERM CGF，康维德公司，新泽西州普林斯顿ER Squibb & Sons]）在治疗II期和浅III期压疮中的临床效果。

设计

前瞻性、开放标签、随机、对比、多中心临床评估。对患者进行最长56天的随访或直至溃疡愈合。研究者每隔一周进行伤口评估和敷料性能评估。

地点

伤口护理诊所、家庭护理和长期护理机构。

患者

35例患者接受TAAD，37例患者接受HD。

观察指标

测量敷料性能评估、患者舒适度、敷料使用时间和伤口愈合情况。

结果

大多数研究者评估更倾向于TAAD。考虑因素包括将敷料置于溃疡中央的能力（P = 0.005）、吸收前（P < 0.001）和吸收后（P < 0.001）评估溃疡的能力、屏障性能（P = 0.039）、去除敷料时患者的舒适度（P < 0.001）、患者总体舒适度（P = 0.048）、吸收前（P = 0.026）和吸收后（P = 0.001）的贴合性、去除的难易程度（P < 0.001）、不粘连伤口床（P < 0.001）、伤口内的残留（P = 0.002）、伤口周围皮肤的残留（P < 0.001）以及吸收后的气味（P = 0.016）。总体满意度更倾向于TAAD（P < 0.001），且对其透明特性评价很高（P < 0.001）。TAAD的平均（标准差）使用时间为5.7（2.55）天，而HD为4.7（2.29）天（P = 0.086）。研究者在临床上注意到了这1天的使用时间差异（P = 0.035）。两个敷料组的伤口闭合情况几乎相同（P = 0.9627）。