Open AccessA comparison of the in vitro moisture vapour transmission rate and in vivo fluid‐handling capacity of six adhesive foam dressings to a newly reformulated adhesive foam dressing
Author(s) -
Zehrer Cindy L.,
Holm David,
Solfest Staci E.,
Walters ShelleyAnn
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
international wound journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.867
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1742-481X
pISSN - 1742-4801
DOI - 10.1111/iwj.12030
Subject(s) - medicine , adhesive , in vivo , biomedical engineering , surgery , composite material , materials science , microbiology and biotechnology , layer (electronics) , biology
This study compared moisture vapour transmission rate ( MVTR ) and wear time or fluid‐handling capacities of six adhesive foam dressings to a reformulated control dressing. Standardised in vitro MVTR methodology and a previously published in vivo artificial wound model ( AWM ) were used. Mean inverted MVTR for the reformulated dressing was 12 750 g/m 2 /24 hours and was significantly higher than four of the six comparator dressings ( P < 0·0001), which ranged from 830 to 11 360 g/m 2 /24 hours. Mean upright MVTR for the reformulated dressing was 980 g/m 2 /24 hours and was significantly different than all of the comparator dressings ( P < 0·0001), which ranged from 80 to 1620 g/m 2 /24 hours (three higher/three lower). The reformulated dressing median wear time ranged from 6·1 to >7·0 days, compared with 1·0 to 3·5 days for the comparator dressings ( P = 0·0012 to P < 0·0001). The median fluid volume handled ranged from 78·0 to >87 ml compared with 13·0 to 44·5 ml for the comparator dressings ( P = 0·0007 to P < 0·001). Interestingly, inverted MVTR did not correspond well to the AWM . These results suggest that marked differences exist between the dressings in terms of both MVTR and wear time or fluid‐handling capacity. Furthermore, high inverted MVTR does not necessarily predict longer wear time or fluid‐handling capacities of absorbent dressings.