Leicht P, Siim E, Sørensen B
Department of Plastic Surgery, Københavns Kommunes Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Burns Incl Therm Inj. 1989 Feb;15(1):7-10. doi: 10.1016/0305-4179(89)90060-0.
In the search for a good temporary donor site dressing two synthetic products were compared in a randomized controlled clinical trial: Duoderm, a double layer dressing with an inner hydrocolloid polymer complex layer and an outer layer of polyurethane foam, impermeable to water and oxygen, and Omiderm, a hydrophilic polyurethane transparent membrane, permeable to water and oxygen. Sequence analysis showed that the trial could finish when eight patients had been treated. The Duoderm dressing resulted in solid re-epithelialization almost 3 days earlier than Omiderm, and it was more comfortable for the patients. Neither the Duoderm-treated nor the Omiderm-treated donor sites showed any signs of clinical infection. Due to fluid accumulation beneath the dressing during the first postoperative days the Duoderm dressing had to be changed more often than the Omiderm.
在寻找一种优良的临时供皮区敷料时,在一项随机对照临床试验中对两种合成产品进行了比较:Duoderm,一种双层敷料,其内层为水胶体聚合物复合层,外层为聚氨酯泡沫,不透水和氧气;以及Omiderm,一种亲水性聚氨酯透明膜,可透水和氧气。序列分析表明,当治疗8名患者时试验可以结束。Duoderm敷料比Omiderm敷料使创面实现牢固上皮化的时间几乎早3天,并且对患者来说更舒适。接受Duoderm治疗和接受Omiderm治疗的供皮区均未出现任何临床感染迹象。由于术后头几天敷料下有积液,Duoderm敷料比Omiderm敷料更换得更频繁。