Buy this Article for $7.95

Have a coupon or promotional code? Enter it here:

When you buy this you'll get access to the ePub version, a downloadable PDF, and the ability to print the full article.

Authors

  1. Brown-Etris, Marie RN, CWOCN
  2. Milne, Catherine APRN,BC, MSN, CWOCN
  3. Orsted, Heather RN, BN, ET, MSc
  4. Gates, Judy L. MSN, RN, BC, CWS, FCCWS
  5. Netsch, Debra RN, MSN, FNP, CWOCN
  6. Punchello, Marion LPN
  7. Couture, Nancy RN, IIWCC
  8. Albert, Martine RN, BScN, ET
  9. Attrell, Edie RN, BN, ET, IIWCC
  10. Freyberg, Julie RN, BSN, CWOCN

ABSTRACT

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.