Turnbull Michael J, Grigsby Iwen, Unertl Karl, Sokol Kerry, Nordby Tera, Liu Cedric, Bailey Anna, Spiewak Brian, Smith Graham, McNulty Amy K
Medical Solutions Division, 3M Health Care, St. Paul, USA.
Global Medical and Clinical Affairs, 3M Health Care, St. Paul, USA.
Cureus. 2024 Mar 20;16(3):e56548. doi: 10.7759/cureus.56548. eCollection 2024 Mar.
Medical tapes can lead to skin damage upon removal in susceptible patients with fragile skin and at higher risk of developing tissue injury.
We compared the effect of medical tapes with silicone-based versus acrylate-based adhesives on the back or volar forearm stratum corneum using analytical techniques to assess skin condition and potential damage post product removal on 88 healthy volunteers.
Two studies were conducted in separate facilities (Study 1: 3M In-house Clinical Facility, St. Paul, Minnesota; Study 2: DermiCo, LLC, Broomall, Pennsylvania). Four commercially available tapes were the same in both studies, two for each type of adhesive. We evaluated adhesion to the skin, total proteins and corneocytes removed by the tapes, changes in transepidermal water loss (TEWL), and induction of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-1 alpha (IL-1a).
One of the silicone tapes displayed the strongest adhesion at 24 hours, and one of the acrylate tapes had the lowest adhesion, showing differences in performance within adhesive categories. The adhesion forces did not correlate with the amount of total protein or corneocytes removed. Silicone adhesives removed less total protein and corneocytes than acrylate adhesives. Silicone adhesives did not alter TEWL, whereas acrylate adhesives significantly raised TEWL. There were no differences in interleukin-1alpha induction.
The silicone adhesive tapes were less disruptive to the skin barrier than the acrylate adhesive tapes, even in healthy volunteers whose skin is not as fragile as what is observed in typical patients. This type of data could guide clinical product usage decisions.
对于皮肤脆弱且发生组织损伤风险较高的易感患者,医用胶带在去除时可能会导致皮肤损伤。
我们使用分析技术比较了含硅酮基粘合剂和丙烯酸酯基粘合剂的医用胶带对88名健康志愿者背部或掌侧前臂角质层的影响,以评估产品去除后皮肤状况和潜在损伤。
在两个不同的机构进行了两项研究(研究1:明尼苏达州圣保罗市3M内部临床机构;研究2:宾夕法尼亚州布鲁莫尔市DermiCo有限责任公司)。两项研究中使用的四种市售胶带相同,每种粘合剂类型各两种。我们评估了胶带对皮肤的粘附力、胶带去除的总蛋白和角质形成细胞、经表皮水分流失(TEWL)的变化以及炎症细胞因子白细胞介素-1α(IL-1α)的诱导情况。
其中一种硅酮胶带在24小时时显示出最强的粘附力,而一种丙烯酸酯胶带的粘附力最低,表明在粘合剂类别中性能存在差异。粘附力与去除的总蛋白或角质形成细胞数量无关。硅酮粘合剂去除的总蛋白和角质形成细胞比丙烯酸酯粘合剂少。硅酮粘合剂不会改变TEWL,而丙烯酸酯粘合剂会显著提高TEWL。白细胞介素-1α诱导方面没有差异。
即使在皮肤不像典型患者那样脆弱的健康志愿者中,硅酮粘合剂胶带对皮肤屏障的破坏也比丙烯酸酯粘合剂胶带小。这类数据可为临床产品使用决策提供指导。