[Comparison among several foam dressings in the properties of water-absorption, water-locking and air permeability]

Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2012 Oct;28(5):349-52.
[Article in Chinese]

Abstract

Objective: To compare the properties of water-absorption, water-locking, and air permeability among several foam dressings, and to provide references for clinician in choosing dressings for different types of wounds.

Methods: The comparison was made among Allevyn foam dressing, Mepilex foam dressing, and Biatain foam dressing that were commonly used in clinic. NaCl and CaCl2·H2O respectively in the weight of 8.3 g and 0.367 g were diluted with distilled water to the volume of 1 L to simulate wound exudation. The simulated wound exudation was used to test the water-absorbing rate of dressings at post immersion hour (PIH) 24, water-absorbing speed of dressings at post immersion minute (PIM) 1, 5, 10, and 20, the diffusion diameter of exudation dripped on the surface of dressings for 5 min to reflect the water-locking capacity of dressings, and the water evaporation capacity of exudation after being sealed up by dressings for 24 h to reflect the air permeability of dressings. Five samples of each dressing were used for each index. Data were processed with one-way analysis of variance and analysis of variance of repeated measurement, and LSD method was applied in paired comparison.

Results: (1) The water-absorbing rate at PIH 24 of Allevyn foam dressing, Mepilex foam dressing, and Biatain foam dressing were respectively (646 ± 18)%, (616 ± 19)%, and (499 ± 11)% (F = 423.854, P < 0.01). The differences between each two dressings in water-absorbing rate were statistically significant (with P values all below 0.01). (2) The water-absorbing speed of Allevyn foam dressing at PIM 1, 5, 10, and 20 were (35.20 ± 2.31), (12.48 ± 0.37), (6.63 ± 0.23), and (3.39 ± 0.08) g×s(-1)×m(-2), which were obviously lower than those of Mepilex foam dressing [(119.68 ± 2.59), (24.39 ± 0.62), (12.33 ± 0.29), and (6.18 ± 0.13) g×s(-1)×m(-2)] and Biatain foam dressing [(121.09 ± 3.41), (24.73 ± 0.52), (12.37 ± 0.25), (6.18 ± 0.13) g×s(-1)×m(-2)], with P values all below 0.01. The water-absorbing speed of each dressing showed the trend of declination among three dressings with prolongation of time. The differences between two adjacent time points within each dressing in water-absorbing speed were statistically significant (with P values below 0.01). (3) Diffusion diameters of exudation dripped on the surface of Allevyn foam dressing, Mepilex foam dressing, and Biatain foam dressing were respectively (5.66 ± 0.15), (4.84 ± 0.15), (3.94 ± 0.21) cm (F = 124.742, P < 0.01). The differences between each two of the three dressings in diffusion diameter were statistically significant (with P values all below 0.01). (4) The water evaporation capacity of exudation after being sealed up by each dressing for 24 h decreased in succession for Allevyn foam dressing, Mepilex foam dressing, and Biatain foam dressing, which were respectively (31.2 ± 3.1), (29.7 ± 8.7), (5.6 ± 2.8) g×h(-1)×m(-2) (F = 24.324, P < 0.01). The water evaporation capacity of exudation sealed with Biatain foam dressing was significantly lower than that of exudation sealed with Allevyn foam dressing and Mepilex foam dressing (with P values below 0.01).

Conclusions: Among the three kinds of foam dressings, Allevyn performs best in water-absorbing rate, water-locking capacity, and air permeability, while Mepilex and Biatain perform best in water-absorbing speed. For selecting foam dressing in clinic, the properties of foam dressings and wound characteristics should be considered at the same time.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • English Abstract

MeSH terms

  • Absorption
  • Materials Testing
  • Occlusive Dressings*
  • Permeability
  • Water

Substances

  • Water