Janssen Lando, Allard Neeltje A E, Ten Haaf Dominique S M, van Romburgh Cees P P, Eijsvogels Thijs M H, Hopman Maria T E
Volunteer Management Department, The Netherlands Red Cross, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Clin J Sport Med. 2018 Jan;28(1):37-42. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000424.
Blisters are common foot injuries during and after prolonged walking. However, the best treatment remains unclear. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of 2 different friction blister treatment regimens, wide area fixation dressing versus adhesive tape.
A prospective observational cohort study.
The 2015 Nijmegen Four Days Marches in the Netherlands.
A total of 2907 participants (45 ± 16 years, 52% men) were included and received 4131 blister treatments.
Blisters were treated with either a wide area fixation dressing or adhesive tape.
Time of treatment application was our primary outcome. In addition, effectiveness and satisfaction were evaluated in a subgroup (n = 254). During a 1-month follow-up period, blister healing, infection and the need for additional medical treatment were assessed in the subgroup.
Time of treatment application was lower (41.5 minutes; SD = 21.6 minutes) in the wide area fixation dressing group compared with the adhesive tape group (43.4 minutes; SD = 25.5 minutes; P = 0.02). Furthermore, the wide area fixation dressing group demonstrated a significantly higher drop-out rate (11.7% vs 4.0%, P = 0.048), delayed blister healing (51.9% vs 35.3%, P = 0.02), and a trend toward lower satisfaction (P = 0.054) when compared with the adhesive tape group.
Wide area fixation dressing decreased time of treatment application by 2 minutes (4.5%) when compared with adhesive tape. However, because of lower effectiveness and a trend toward lower satisfaction, we do not recommend the use of wide area fixation dressing over adhesive tape in routine first-aid treatment for friction blisters.
水泡是长时间行走期间及之后常见的足部损伤。然而，最佳治疗方法仍不明确。本研究的目的是比较两种不同的摩擦水泡治疗方案，即大面积固定敷料与胶带的效果。
一项前瞻性观察队列研究。
荷兰2015年奈梅亨四日行军活动。
共纳入2907名参与者（45±16岁，52%为男性），共接受了4131次水泡治疗。
水泡采用大面积固定敷料或胶带进行治疗。
治疗应用时间是我们的主要观察指标。此外，在一个亚组（n = 254）中评估了有效性和满意度。在1个月的随访期内，对该亚组的水泡愈合情况、感染情况以及额外医疗治疗需求进行了评估。
与胶带组（43.4分钟；标准差 = 25.5分钟；P = 0.02）相比，大面积固定敷料组的治疗应用时间更低（41.5分钟；标准差 = 21.6分钟）。此外，与胶带组相比，大面积固定敷料组的脱落率显著更高（11.7%对4.0%，P = 0.048），水泡愈合延迟（51.9%对35.3%，P = 0.02），且满意度有降低趋势（P = 0.054）。
与胶带相比，大面积固定敷料使治疗应用时间缩短了2分钟（4.5%）。然而，由于有效性较低且有满意度降低趋势，我们不建议在摩擦水泡的常规急救治疗中使用大面积固定敷料而非胶带。
