» Articles » PMID: 19291121

Effect of a Water-based No-sting, Protective Barrier Formulation and a Solvent-containing Similar Formulation on Skin Protection from Medical Adhesive Trauma

Overview
Journal Int Wound J
Date 2009 Mar 18
PMID 19291121
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Trauma to the skin from repeated removal of adhesive-based medical products can cause pain, anxiety, risk of secondary infections and additional health care costs. Skin barrier formulations are used to protect the integrity from such trauma. However, not all formulations are equally protective. We report the results of a randomised controlled study comparing a solvent-free (SF) formulation and a solvent-containing (SC) formulation to the skin of 12 healthy volunteers aged 18-55 years. Treatments were applied at baseline to two of the four test sites on the back of each subject and repeated for 5 days. Measurements of pain, discomfort, erythema and skin water loss were taken 24 hours after each application. The SF formulation is associated with lower mean scores for erythema (day 5, P < 0.05) and lower values for transepidermal water loss (day 5, P < 0.05) and redness (days 4 and 5, P < 0.05) when compared with either no treatment or daily treatment with a SC formulation. There were no significant differences between subject responses when pain on application of the test formulation or discomfort associated with removal of the medical adhesive tapes were rated. We conclude that a SF formulation provides better security against adhesive-derived skin trauma than a SC formulation.

Citing Articles

Prevention of medical adhesive-related skin injury during patient care: A scoping review.

de Faria M, Ferreira M, Dos Santos Felix M, Bessa R, Barbosa M Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2024; 4:100078.

PMID: 38745606 PMC: 11080338. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2022.100078.


[Guidelines for neonatal skin management in the neonatal intensive care unit (2021)].

Evidence-Based Medicine G, Neonatologist S, Chinese Medical Doctor A Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2021; 23(7):659-670.

PMID: 34266521 PMC: 8292657.


Management of Moisture-Associated Skin Damage: A Scoping Review.

Woo K, Beeckman D, Chakravarthy D Adv Skin Wound Care. 2017; 30(11):494-501.

PMID: 29049257 PMC: 5657465. DOI: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000525627.54569.da.

References
1.
Wu P, Nelson E, Reid W, Ruckley C, Gaylor J . Water vapour transmission rates in burns and chronic leg ulcers: influence of wound dressings and comparison with in vitro evaluation. Biomaterials. 1996; 17(14):1373-7. DOI: 10.1016/0142-9612(96)87277-2. View

2.
Butler C . Pediatric skin care: guidelines for assessment, prevention, and treatment. Pediatr Nurs. 2006; 32(5):443-50. View

3.
Tokumura F, Umekage K, Sado M, Otsuka S, Suda S, Taniguchi M . Skin irritation due to repetitive application of adhesive tape: the influence of adhesive strength and seasonal variability. Skin Res Technol. 2005; 11(2):102-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.2005.00088.x. View

4.
Ferguson J, Martin C, Rayner C . Burn wound evaporation--measurement of body fluid loss by probe evaporimeter and weight change. Clin Phys Physiol Meas. 1991; 12(2):143-55. DOI: 10.1088/0143-0815/12/2/003. View

5.
Denda M, Tsuchiya T . Barrier recovery rate varies time-dependently in human skin. Br J Dermatol. 2000; 142(5):881-4. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2000.03466.x. View