Anusitviwat Chirathit, Yuenyongviwat Varah
Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, 15 Karnchanavanich Road, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Songkhla, Thailand.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Feb 1;20(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05448-7.
Silicone-coated self-adhesive absorbent (SSA) and transparent films with absorbent (TFA) dressings are reportedly effective postoperative knee surgery dressings; however, there have been no direct comparative studies on these two innovative dressings over the hip areas. In this study, we aimed to compare user satisfaction and potential complications between TFA and SSA dressings for the hip area.
This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital. The hip side to receive the polyurethane film with SSA dressing (Mepilex Border Post-Op) was randomly allocated. The other side of the hip was covered with TFA (OPSITE Post-Op). Participants were scheduled for follow-ups 7 and 14 days after the initial application. Between-group outcomes were compared using a two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous variables and McNemar's chi-square test for categorical variables.
Thirty-two participants (30 - 60 years) without a history of hip surgery were included in the study. The participants were predominantly female, with a mean age of 42.8 years. Pain, difficulties in daily activities, and satisfaction scores were similar between the groups. However, moisture accumulation was significantly higher with the TFA dressing (37.9% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.01), with more dressing failures (34.5% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.016) and complications (37.9% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.012) at the 14-day follow-up than with the SSA dressing.
SSA dressings are preferable for hip wound care because of better moisture management, fewer dressing changes required, and fewer complications if applied for > 7 days. Both dressings offered high user satisfaction, minimal pain, and minor difficulties in daily activities.
据报道，硅胶涂层自粘吸收性（SSA）敷料和带吸收性的透明薄膜（TFA）敷料是有效的膝关节术后敷料；然而，尚未有关于这两种创新敷料在髋部区域的直接对比研究。在本研究中，我们旨在比较TFA和SSA敷料用于髋部区域时的用户满意度和潜在并发症。
本前瞻性随机对照试验在一家三级医院进行。随机分配髋部一侧使用带有SSA敷料的聚氨酯薄膜（美皮康术后加强型）。髋部另一侧覆盖TFA（优赛术后敷料）。参与者在初次应用后7天和14天安排随访。连续变量采用两样本t检验或Wilcoxon符号秩检验进行组间结果比较，分类变量采用McNemar卡方检验。
32名无髋部手术史的参与者（30 - 60岁）纳入本研究。参与者以女性为主，平均年龄42.8岁。两组之间的疼痛、日常活动困难和满意度评分相似。然而，TFA敷料的水分积聚明显更高（37.9%对13.8%，p < 0.01），在14天随访时敷料失败（34.5%对20.7%，p = 0.016）和并发症（37.9%对17.2%，p = 0.012）比SSA敷料更多。
SSA敷料更适合用于髋部伤口护理，因为其水分管理更好，更换敷料次数更少，且应用超过7天时并发症更少。两种敷料均具有较高的用户满意度、最小的疼痛和日常活动中的轻微困难。
