The effect of adhesive dressing edges on cutaneous irritancy and skin barrier function
- PMID: 17385583
- DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2007.16.3.27013
The effect of adhesive dressing edges on cutaneous irritancy and skin barrier function
Abstract
Objective: To assess the effect of repeated application and removal of adhesive edges from wound-care products on cutaneous irritancy and barrier function in normal volunteer subjects.
Method: This was a study using a 'repeat-insult patch test'. Adhesive edges from six commonly used wound-care products were applied continuously to the same site (six applications over a 14-day period) in 30 normal volunteer subjects. The test sites were assessed clinically before product reapplication using established ranking scales for cutaneous erythema. The cumulative irritancy score (CIS) for each test site was determined by adding the erythema scores at days 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15. At the study end the barrier function of each test site was assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL).
Results: The CIS showed that the products fall into two distinct groups, with Mepilex, Tielle and Allevyn giving low scores and Biatain, Comfeel and DuoDERM higher scores. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences (p < 0.05) between Mepilex and Biatain, Mepilex and Comfeel, Mepilex and DuoDERM, Tielle and Biatain, Allevyn and Biatain. The mean TEWL values also indicated that the products fall into two distinct groups: Mepilex, Tielle and Allevyn with low mean values close to that of normal adjacent back skin and Biatain, Comfeel and DuoDERM with much higher mean values. Statistical analysis indicated that Mepilex, Tielle and Allevyn were not significantly different from normal skin (p < 0.05), whereas Biatain, Comfeel and DuoDERM were significantly higher than normal skin and the other products tested.
Conclusion: The results show clear differences between products; the clinical scores and TEWL measurements indicate that the products fall into two distinct groups. This novel approach seems able to discriminate between adhesive borders and may be useful during product development and in selecting products for clinical trials.
Similar articles
-
An evaluation of the skin stripping of wound dressing adhesives.J Wound Care. 2011 Sep;20(9):412, 414, 416-22. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2011.20.9.412. J Wound Care. 2011. PMID: 22068140 Clinical Trial.
-
The link between the peel force of adhesive dressings and subjective discomfort in volunteer subjects.J Wound Care. 2003 Jul;12(7):260-2. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2003.12.7.26567. J Wound Care. 2003. PMID: 12894697 Clinical Trial.
-
Effects of adhesive dressings on the stratum corneum of the skin.J Wound Care. 2001 Feb;10(2):7-10. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.2.26054. J Wound Care. 2001. PMID: 12964220 Clinical Trial.
-
The vulvar epithelium differs from the skin: implications for cutaneous testing to address topical vulvar exposures.Contact Dermatitis. 2004 Oct;51(4):201-9. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00444.x. Contact Dermatitis. 2004. PMID: 15500670 Review.
-
The Behind-the-Knee test: an efficient model for evaluating mechanical and chemical irritation.Skin Res Technol. 2006 May;12(2):73-82. doi: 10.1111/j.0909-752X.2006.00184.x. Skin Res Technol. 2006. PMID: 16626379 Review.
Cited by
-
Application of Self-Adhesive Soft Silicone Common Foam Dressing in Reducing Intraoperative Pressure Ulcers in Elderly ICU Patients.Comput Math Methods Med. 2021 Dec 10;2021:4482201. doi: 10.1155/2021/4482201. eCollection 2021. Comput Math Methods Med. 2021. Retraction in: Comput Math Methods Med. 2023 Jul 19;2023:9834691. doi: 10.1155/2023/9834691. PMID: 34925541 Free PMC article. Retracted.
-
A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing the performance of a soft silicone-coated wound contact layer (Mepitel One) with a lipidocolloid wound contact layer (UrgoTul) in the treatment of acute wounds.Int Wound J. 2018 Feb;15(1):159-169. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12853. Epub 2017 Dec 5. Int Wound J. 2018. PMID: 29205809 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Dressings as an adjunct to pressure ulcer prevention: consensus panel recommendations.Int Wound J. 2015 Aug;12(4):484-8. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12197. Epub 2014 Mar 3. Int Wound J. 2015. PMID: 24588955 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter-related infections.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 1;2(2):CD009213. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009213.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 26827714 Free PMC article.
-
Contact dermatitis: An important consideration in leg ulcers.Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Dec 30;7(3):298-303. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.12.010. eCollection 2021 Jun. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020. PMID: 34222587 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical