An open prospective, randomised volunteer trial and an in-vitro assessment to compare protection provided by a composite hydrocellular foam dressing (CHF†) with silicone gel adhesive compared to two alternative silicone gel adhesive dressings

Aim: The study assessed whether the CHF dressings provided volunteers with a perception of protection against external mechanical forces such as knocks compared to an Alternative Silicone Gel Adhesive (ASGA)* and Bilaminate Island Silicone** (BIS) dressings.  The study was conducted on 74 healthy volunteers.

Method: Volunteers were blindfolded and had CHF and test dressings applied to their elbows. Dressings were randomised across the elbows. Subjects were given a metal rod to hold and placed their elbows on the table. Subjects were asked to lower their arms forward over the table and rate their perception of protection of the dressings. McNemars test was used to test for differences. In-vitrolaboratory testing of the dispersion of external force by dressings was also conducted. Dressings were applied to a pressure sensitive mat and force applied using a tensile tester. The average pressure detected by the pressure mat was measured, and compared to pressure detected by the pressure mat when no dressing was present.

Results: There was significance evidence that CHF was perceived by volunteers in the study to have a greater level of protection than both ASGA (p<0.001) and BIS (p<0.001) dressings. Additionally, a significantly greater percentage of CHF dressings were rated to have ‘high’ protection compared to both ASGA (66% vs. 38%; p<0.001) and BIS (80% vs. 20%; p<0.001).  In-vitro testing confirmed the findings; when comparing the pressure without a dressing, the CHF dressing reduced the pressure detected by the pressure mat by 56% in contrast to 29% for the ASGA and 38% for the BIS dressings.

Conclusion: CHF dressing was shown to demonstrate a greater level of protection than ASGA and BIS dressings.