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

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q2 NURSING

International Journal of Nursing Practice Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.1111/ijn.13229

Paul Fulbrook RN, PhD, BSc (Hons), Sandra J. Miles RN, PhD, MN, Damian M. Williams RN, MNP (Nurse Practitioner), GradCertClinNurs (Wound Management)

{"title":"Healing rate of hospital-acquired skin tears using adhesive silicone foam versus meshed silicone interface dressings: A prospective, randomized, non-inferiority pilot study","authors":"Paul Fulbrook RN, PhD, BSc (Hons), Sandra J. Miles RN, PhD, MN, Damian M. Williams RN, MNP (Nurse Practitioner), GradCertClinNurs (Wound Management)","doi":"10.1111/ijn.13229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>A 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the effectiveness of two standard dressings (adhesive silicone foam vs. meshed silicone interface) to heal hospital-acquired skin tear.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An intention-to-treat pilot study was designed using a randomized, non-inferiority trial in an Australian tertiary hospital setting. Consenting participants (<i>n</i> = 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Baseline 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Results 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14223,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","volume":"30 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijn.13229","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijn.13229","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

A 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.

Aim

To compare the effectiveness of two standard dressings (adhesive silicone foam vs. meshed silicone interface) to heal hospital-acquired skin tear.

Methods

An 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.

Results

Baseline 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.

Conclusions

Results 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.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用粘性硅酮泡沫与网状硅酮界面敷料治疗医院获得性皮肤撕裂的愈合率：前瞻性、随机、非劣效试验研究

皮肤撕裂是一种创伤性伤口，每五名住院患者中就有一名会出现这种情况。护理工作包括使用敷料来营造湿润的伤口愈合环境。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Nursing Practice NURSING-

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： International Journal of Nursing Practice is a fully refereed journal that publishes original scholarly work that advances the international understanding and development of nursing, both as a profession and as an academic discipline. The Journal focuses on research papers and professional discussion papers that have a sound scientific, theoretical or philosophical base. Preference is given to high-quality papers written in a way that renders them accessible to a wide audience without compromising quality. The primary criteria for acceptance are excellence, relevance and clarity. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.