Comparative evaluation of the functional properties of superabsorbent dressings and their effect on exudate management

Abstract

A range of wound dressings currently available in the UK and elsewhere, each claiming to possess different performance characteristics, can make dressing selection difficult. This report concentrates on the superabsorbent polymer dressings (SAPs) – which are designed to absorb medium to high levels of exudate and to maintain an ‘ideal moist wound healing environment’. What do these dressings achieve, what are they suitable/not suitable for, and are all super-absorbent dressings equal in terms of performance and quality? When assessing the key performance characteristics of absorbency, moisture vapour transmission rate (MVTR), strikethrough and structural integrity, results show that SAPs are not all the same—in fact each of them varies considerably and may lend themselves to different wound aetiologies and usage conditions. While performance data is often presented from non-standard tests or modifications, it is proposed that to provide clarity over dressing selection, all SAPs were measured using International Standards for the key performance characteristics. This will aid clinical staff in selecting the most appropriate dressing for each wound.

Investigating the microbial and metalloprotease sequestration properties of superabsorbent wound dressings

“…This increases the risk of maceration. Although there are some discrepancies when compared against a previous study that has investigated similar dressings 9 , such as a difference in the total absorbence for Kliniderm Superabsorbent, it is possible that there may be differences in methodology. For instance, we have used a salt solution, whereas the aforementioned study used water 9 .…”

“…Although there are some discrepancies when compared against a previous study that has investigated similar dressings 9 , such as a difference in the total absorbence for Kliniderm Superabsorbent, it is possible that there may be differences in methodology. For instance, we have used a salt solution, whereas the aforementioned study used water 9 . In either case, wound exudate consists of an array of large molecules 10 and so it is possible that the fluid handling and retention properties of each dressing may be different in situ.…”

“…Exudate is important for creating a moist wound environment and promoting healing 8 , 9 . In acute wounds, exudate contains white blood cells to control microorganisms, nutrients and growth factors to promote cell proliferation and migration, and proteases to remodel the damaged extracellular matrix 10 .…”

Fluid management and strength postsimulated use of primary and secondary dressings for treating diabetic foot ulcers: Robotic phantom studies

“…It is therefore surprising that laboratory testing to evaluate the fluid management performances and mechanical integrity and endurance of wound dressings, for example, the commonly used European EN 13726 family of standards for wound dressings 37 typically neglects the physiological and clinical aspects that determine the environment in which dressings function. Among the topics that are ignored in the abovementioned and similar testing standards are: (a) the anatomical configuration relevant to the wound; (b) physiological levels of mechanical forces that may impact on the wound and dressings during usage; (c) the directionality of flow from the wound bed into the applied dressings; (d) the biophysical behaviour of the exudate which may be viscous, not watery as the sodium/calcium ion ‘Solution A’, saline or Ringer's solutions that are often used according to the above and similar testing standards and protocols; and (e) the clinical practice of application and removal of dressings (and dressing pairs) 38‐40 …”

Bacterial Cellulose—Adaptation of a Nature-Identical Material to the Needs of Advanced Chronic Wound Care

“…different wound dressings, the standardized Paddington cup method as described in EN 13726 was chosen As described in the standard, MVTR data was determined for two different experimental settings: dressings in contact with vapor (Supplementary Materials, Figure S1) and dressings in contact with liquid (Figure 5). Although the contact with liquid method is recommended because it simulates more closely the wound environment as the dressing is in direct contact with the exudate [68], some dressings (see ALG; CMC) do not feature waterproofness and can therefore only be analyzed by the contact with vapor method (see Supplementary Materials, Figure S1.).…”