首页> 外文期刊>Advances in skin & wound care >A Prospective, Randomized, Multisite Clinical Evaluation of a Transparent Absorbent Acrylic Dressing and a Hydrocolloid Dressing in the Management of Stage II and Shallow Stage III Pressure Ulcers.
【24h】

A Prospective, Randomized, Multisite Clinical Evaluation of a Transparent Absorbent Acrylic Dressing and a Hydrocolloid Dressing in the Management of Stage II and Shallow Stage III Pressure Ulcers.

机译:透明,吸收性丙烯酸敷料和水胶体敷料在II期和浅III期压力性溃疡的治疗中进行的前瞻性,随机,多站点临床评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE:: To compare clinical performance of a transparent absorbent acrylic dressing (3M Tegaderm Absorbent Clear Acrylic Dressing ]TAAD[; 3M Company, St Paul, MN) and a hydrocolloid dressing (HD ]DuoDERM CGF, ConvaTec, ER Squibb & Sons, Princeton, NJ[) in the management of Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers. DESIGN:: Prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative, multisite clinical evaluation. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 56 days or until their ulcer healed. At weekly intervals, investigators conducted wound assessments and dressing performance evaluations. SETTING:: Wound care clinics, home care, and long-term care. PATIENTS:: Thirty-five patients received the TAAD, and 37 received the HD. OUTCOME MEASURES:: Dressing performance assessments, patient comfort, dressing wear time, and wound healing were measured. RESULTS:: The majority of investigator assessments favored the TAAD. Considerations given included the ability to center dressings over the ulcer (P = .005), ability to assess the ulcer before (P < .001) and after (P < .001) absorption, barrier properties (P = .039), patient comfort during removal (P < .001), overall patient comfort (P = .048), conformability before (P = .026) and after (P = .001) absorption, ease of removal (P < .001), nonadherence to wound bed (P < .001), residue in the wound (P = .002), residue on periwound skin (P < .001), and odor after absorption (P = .016). Overall satisfaction favored the TAAD (P < .001), and a high value was placed on its transparent feature (P < .001). Mean (SD) wear time for the TAAD was 5.7 (2.55) days compared with 4.7 (2.29) days for the HD (P .086). This 1-day difference in wear time was clinically noticeable by the investigators (P = .035). Wound closure for the 2 dressing groups was nearly identical (P = .9627). CONCLUSIONS:: Performance results favored the TAAD over the HD as standard treatment for Stage II and shallow Stage III pressure ulcers.
机译:目的:比较透明的丙烯酸吸收性敷料(3M Tegaderm透明丙烯酸吸收性敷料] TAAD [; 3M公司,明尼苏达州圣保罗)和水胶体敷料(HD)DuoDERM CGF,ConvaTec,ER Squibb&Sons,普林斯顿的临床性能,NJ []来治疗II期和浅III期压疮。设计::前瞻性,开放标签,随机,比较,多站点临床评估。随访患者最多56天或直至溃疡愈合。研究人员每隔一周进行一次伤口评估和敷料性能评估。地点:伤口护理诊所,家庭护理和长期护理。患者:35例患者接受了TAAD,37例接受了HD。观察指标:评估敷料性能,患者舒适度,敷料穿戴时间和伤口愈合情况。结果:大多数研究者的评估偏爱TAAD。所考虑的因素包括将敷料集中在溃疡上的能力(P = .005),在吸收之前(P <.001)和吸收之后(P <.001)评估溃疡的能力,屏障特性(P = .039),患者取出时的舒适度(P <.001),患者总体舒适度(P = .048),吸收之前(P = .026)和吸收之后(P = .001)的顺应性,取出的难易程度(P <.001),伤口床(P <.001),伤口中的残留物(P = .002),伤口周围皮肤上的残留物(P <.001)和吸收后的气味(P = .016)。总体满意度偏高TAAD(P <.001),透明特征具有很高的价值(P <.001)。 TAAD的平均(SD)磨损时间为5.7(2.55)天,而HD(P .086)为4.7(2.29)天。研究人员在临床上注意到佩戴时间的这一1天差异(P = .035)。 2个敷料组的伤口闭合率几乎相同(P = .9627)。结论:作为II期和III期浅层压疮的标准治疗方法,性能结果优于TAAD。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号