Marie Brown-Etris, RN, CWOCN1, Marian Punchello, LPN1, Theresa O’Connor, RN, BSN, CWOCN1, Catherine Milne, APRN, MSN, CS, CWOCN2, Heather Orsted, RN, BN, ET, MSc3, Nancy Couture, RN3, Martine Albert, RN, BScN3, Edie Attrell, RN, BN, ET3, Judy Gates, BSN, RNc, CWS4, Debra Netsch, MSN, RN, FNP, CWOCN5, Ellen Vorbeck, RN, MSN, ANP-BC, CWOCN5, and Julie Freyberg, RN, CWOCN5. (1) Etris Associates, Inc., Clinical Nurse Specialist, 14450 Bustleton Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19116, (2) Connecticut Clinical Nursing Associates LLC, Clinical Nurse Specialist, P.O Box 1535, Bristol, CT 06011-1535, (3) Calgary Home Care, Clinical Nurse Specialist, 300 McLeod Trail S, Calgary, AB T2H 0K2, Canada, (4) Banner Thunderbird Medical Center, Clinical Nurse Specialist, 5555 W. Thunderbird Rd, Glendale, AZ 85306, (5) Mankato Clinic, Clinical Nurse Specialist, 1230 E. Main St, Mankato, MN 56002
PURPOSE/RATIONALE: A transparent absorbent acrylic dressing (TAAD) has been developed which remains transparent after absorbing wound drainage. This study was conducted to compare clinical performance of this TAAD to a hydrocolloid dressing (HD) in the treatment of Stage II and III pressure ulcers (PU). METHODS: A prospective, multi-site, randomized clinical evaluation was conducted to compare the two dressings. Thirty-five patients received the TAAD and thirty-seven the HD. Ulcers were followed for 56 days, or until healing. Multiple sizes and configurations of study dressings were available so that the dressing could be optimally matched to the wound. Wound, peri-wound and dressing performance assessments were conducted at weekly intervals throughout the follow up period. Differences in dressing performance were tested with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and wound healing was compared with Chi-Squared Analysis. RESULTS: The majority of dressing performance assessments favored the TAAD, this included ability to center the dressing over the ulcer (p=0.005), ability to assess the ulcer before (p<0.001) and after (p<0.001) absorption, barrier properties (p=0.039), patient comfort during removal (p<0.001), overall patient comfort (p=0.048), conformability before (p=0.026) after (p=0.001) absorption, ease of removal (p<0.001), non-adherence to the wound bed (p<0.001), residue in the wound (p=0.002), residue on the peri-wound skin (p<0.001), and odor after absorption (p=0.016). Overall satisfaction favored the TAAD (p<0.001) and a high value was placed on transparency (p<0.001). Mean (SD) wear time was 5.7 (2.55) and 4.7 (2.29) days for the TAAD and HD, respectively. This 1.0 day difference in dressing wear time trended toward significance (p=0.086) and was clinically noticeable by the investigators (p=0.035). Wound healing rates did not differ between the two dressing groups (p=0.9627). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study favor the TAAD as standard treatment for Stage II and III PU.
*3M™ Tegaderm™ Absorbent Clear Acrylic Dressing
™ConvaTec DuoDERM® CGF®
See more of Research Poster Abstracts
See more of Research Abstracts
See more of The 38th Annual WOCN Society Conference (June 24 -- 28, 2006)
