Testing the effectiveness of a polymeric membrane dressing in modulating the inflammation of intact, non‐injured, mechanically irritated skin

Abstract

We investigated the inflammatory (IL‐1 alpha) and thermal (infrared thermography) reactions of healthy sacral skin to sustained, irritating mechanical loading. We further acquired digital photographs of the irritated skin (at the visible light domain) to assess whether infrared imaging is advantageous. For clinical context, the skin status was monitored under a polymeric membrane dressing known to modulate the inflammatory skin response. The IL‐1 alpha and infrared thermography measurements were consistent in representing the skin status after 40 min of continuous irritation. Infrared thermography overpowered conventional digital photography as a contactless optical method for image processing inputs, by revealing skin irritation trends that were undetectable through digital photography in the visual light, not even with the aid of advanced image processing. The polymeric membrane dressings were shown to offer prophylactic benefits over simple polyurethane foam in the aspects of inflammation reduction and microclimate management. We also concluded that infrared thermography is a feasible method for monitoring the skin health status and the risk for pressure ulcers, as it avoids the complexity of biological marker studies and empowers visual skin assessments or digital photography of skin, both of which were shown to be insufficient for detecting the inflammatory skin status.

The frictional energy absorber effectiveness and its impact on the pressure ulcer prevention performance of multilayer dressings

“…Previous research has primarily focused on the stiffness and anisotropy of multilayer dressings and their outer coefficient of friction (COF). 10 , 15 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 This extensive volume of published work supported the development of clinical guidelines for the use of prophylactic dressings, including during the COVID‐19 pandemic time, and provided specific design guidance optimizing dressing materials and structures for PUP, which ultimately resulted in evidence‐based recommendations for healthcare practitioners and administrators who make purchase decisions to prevent PUs in their facilities. 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 …”

“…Previous research has primarily focused on the stiffness and anisotropy of multilayer dressings and their outer coefficient of friction (COF). 10,15,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] This extensive volume of published work supported the development of clinical guidelines for the use of prophylactic dressings, including during the COVID-19 pandemic time, and provided specific design guidance optimizing dressing materials and structures for PUP, which ultimately resulted in evidence-based recommendations for healthcare practitioners and administrators who make purchase decisions to prevent PUs in their facilities. [30][31][32][33] Our current study aims to expand upon the above existing literature, by investigating the internal energy absorption mechanism of multilayer dressings and providing valuable insights into how these dressings mitigate the forces exerted on soft tissues, thereby advancing the understanding of PUP strategies by means of dressings.…”

“…The literature published by the AG research group quantified the stress relief in soft tissues at the heels as well as at the sacral region and defined quantitative protective performance and endurance metrics of dressings in prophylactic use, by means of a variety of material measurements and computer modelling and simulation methods. Previous research has primarily focused on the stiffness and anisotropy of multilayer dressings and their outer coefficient of friction (COF) 10,15,22–29 . This extensive volume of published work supported the development of clinical guidelines for the use of prophylactic dressings, including during the COVID‐19 pandemic time, and provided specific design guidance optimizing dressing materials and structures for PUP, which ultimately resulted in evidence‐based recommendations for healthcare practitioners and administrators who make purchase decisions to prevent PUs in their facilities 30–33 …”