Healing rate of hospital‐acquired skin tears using adhesive silicone foam versus meshed silicone interface dressings: A prospective, randomized, non‐inferiority pilot study

Author:

Fulbrook Paul123ORCID,Miles Sandra J.12,Williams Damian M.4

Affiliation:

1. School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine (Brisbane), Faculty of Health Sciences Australian Catholic University Brisbane Queensland Australia

2. Nursing Research and Practice Development Centre The Prince Charles Hospital Chermside Queensland Australia

3. Faculty of Health Sciences University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa

4. Wound/Stoma Service, Internal Medicine Services The Prince Charles Hospital Chermside Queensland Australia

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundA skin tear is a traumatic wound that occurs in up to one in five hospitalized patients. Nursing care includes application of a dressing to create a moist wound healing environment.AimTo compare the effectiveness of two standard dressings (adhesive silicone foam vs. meshed silicone interface) to heal hospital‐acquired skin tear.MethodsAn intention‐to‐treat pilot study was designed using a randomized, non‐inferiority trial in an Australian tertiary hospital setting. Consenting participants (n = 52) had acquired a skin tear within the previous 24 h and had agreed to a 3‐week follow‐up. Data were collected between 2014 and 2020. The primary outcome measure was wound healing at 21 days.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Per protocol, 86% of skin tears were fully healed at 3 weeks in the adhesive silicone foam group, compared to 59% in the meshed silicone interface group. Greater healing was observed across all skin tear categories in the adhesive silicone foam dressing group. In the intention‐to‐treat sample, healing was 69% and 42%, respectively.ConclusionsResults suggest the adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to the meshed silicone interface dressing. Accounting for potential loss to follow‐up, a sample of at least 103 participants per arm would be required to power a definitive study.

Funder

Prince Charles Hospital Foundation

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

General Nursing

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3