Prevalence of Wet-to-Dry Dressings in Wound Care

Current status and progress in research on dressing management for diabetic foot ulcer

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a major complication of diabetes and is associated with a high risk of lower limb amputation and mortality. During their lifetime, 19%-34% of patients with diabetes can develop DFU. It is estimated that 61% of DFU become infected and 15% of those with DFU require amputation. Furthermore, developing a DFU increases the risk of mortality by 50%-68% at 5 years, higher than some cancers. Current standard management of DFU includes surgical debridement, the use of topical dressings and wound decompression, vascular assessment, and glycemic control. Among these methods, local treatment with dressings builds a protective physical barrier, maintains a moist environment, and drains the exudate from DFU wounds. This review summarizes the development, pathophysiology, and healing mechanisms of DFU. The latest research progress and the main application of dressings in laboratory and clinical stage are also summarized. The dressings discussed in this review include traditional dressings (gauze, oil yarn, traditional Chinese medicine, and others), basic dressings (hydrogel, hydrocolloid, sponge, foam, film agents, and others), bacteriostatic dressings, composite dressings (collagen, nanomaterials, chitosan dressings, and others), bioactive dressings (scaffold dressings with stem cells, decellularized wound matrix, autologous platelet enrichment plasma, and others), and dressings that use modern technology (3D bioprinting, photothermal effects, bioelectric dressings, microneedle dressings, smart bandages, orthopedic prosthetics and regenerative medicine). The dressing management challenges and limitations are also summarized. The purpose of this review is to help readers understand the pathogenesis and healing mechanism of DFU, help physicians select dressings correctly, provide an updated overview of the potential of biomaterials and devices and their application in DFU management, and provide ideas for further exploration and development of dressings. Proper use of dressings can promote DFU healing, reduce the cost of treating DFU, and reduce patient pain.

Local wound management: A review of modern techniques and products

Management of wounds is a commonly performed and essential aspect of small animal veterinary medicine. Appropriate wound management is a difficult art to master, due to the inherent complexity of the clinical scenario, as well as the ever-evolving nature of the field with the constant addition of new products and techniques. This article reviews key concepts that may help the practitioner better understand the natural process of wound healing, factors that delay healing and strategies to help improve the local wound environment to make it more conducive to healing during open wound management. The concept of wound bed preparation is defined before common local wound management strategies, such as wound lavage and debridement, are discussed in more detail. Key aspects of the management of biofilms and appropriate use of antimicrobial agents are also reviewed. Finally, the concept of moist wound healing and its impact in modern wound management is explained before a broad variety of types of wound dressings are reviewed, with a particular focus on active dressings.

Peptide hydrogel with self-healing and redox-responsive properties

We have rationally designed a peptide that assembles into a redox-responsive, antimicrobial metallohydrogel. The resulting self-healing material can be rapidly reduced by ascorbate under physiological conditions and demonstrates a remarkable 160-fold change in hydrogel stiffness upon reduction. We provide a computational model of the hydrogel, explaining why position of nitrogen in non-natural amino acid pyridyl-alanine results in drastically different gelation properties of peptides with metal ions. Given its antimicrobial and rheological properties, the newly designed hydrogel can be used for removable wound dressing application, addressing a major unmet need in clinical care.

Application of a collagen matrix dressing on a neuropathic diabetic foot ulcer: a randomised control trial

OBJECTIVE

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are often hard-to-heal, despite standard care. With such a complicated healing process, any advanced wound care to aid healing is recommended. Chitosan/collagen composite hydrogel materials have the potential to promote the regenerative process. In this study, the efficacy of a new collagen matrix dressing including chitosan/collagen hydrogel was compared with a standard dressing of saline-moistened gauze for wound healing in patients with a hard-to-heal neuropathic DFU.

METHOD

This is an open labelled, randomised clinical trial. After conventional therapy consisting of debridement, infection control and offloading, patients were randomly allocated to receive either a collagen matrix dressing (the study group, receiving Tebaderm manufacturer) or a saline-moistened gauze dressing (control group) for wound care. The reduction in DFU size and the number of patients with complete healing were measured throughout the treatment and in follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients with a neuropathic DFU were recruited. Average percentage reduction in DFU size at four weeks was greater in the study group compared with the control group (54.5% versus 38.8%, respectively). Rate of complete healing rate at 20-weeks' follow-up was significantly better in the study group than the control group (60% versus 35.5%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The collagen matrix dressing used in this study accelerated the healing process of patients with a hard-to-heal DFU. Further research may suggest the used of this dressing to shorten the length of time to achieve complete healing.

Clinical efficacy of biocellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose and normal saline dressing in epidermolysis bullosa

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a biocellulose, a carboxymethyl cellulose and a normal saline wound dressing in the wound care management of epidermolysis bullosa (EB) skin wounds.

METHODS

This was a single-blind, randomised controlled trial involving wounds from patients with EB. Wounds were divided into three groups: group I with biocellulose wound dressing, group II with carboxymethyl cellulose wound dressing and group III with normal saline wound dressing as a control. All dressing changes and wound parameters were recorded. Observations were conducted every three days until complete wound closure or up to one month.

RESULTS

The outcomes of treatment of 36 wounds from four patients were evaluated in this study. Mean healing time in group I was seven days, eight days in group II and 14 days in group III. There were significant differences in healing times between group I and group III (p=0.0001) and between group II and III (p=0.001). The results showed a significant reduction in the percentage of wounds area on day three for each group: 51.7% in group I, 51.9% in group II, and 26% for group III. All wounds in groups I and II had healed at day 12 (100%) and at day 24 (100%) in group III. There were significant differences in the reduction of percentage wound area between group I and group III at day three (p=0.044) and day six (p=0.000), and between group II and III at day six (p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that both the biocellulose and the carboxymethyl cellulose wound dressings significantly reduced percentage wound areas and complete healing times compared with the normal saline wound dressing in EB skin wounds, demonstrating they are both equally good for wound care management in EB patients.

Computer-Assisted Wound Assessment and Care Education Program in Registered Nurses: Use of an Interactive Online Program by 418 Registered Nurses

PURPOSE

The purpose of this descriptive study was to evaluate use of a previously validated, online, interactive wound assessment and wound care clinical pathway in a group of RNs. Specific aims were to (a) evaluate the proportions of correct, partially correct, and incorrect algorithmic decisions and dressing selections, (b) compare response rates between nurses who are and who are not wound care certified, and (c) evaluate its ease of use, educational value, and applicability in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling methods. Four hundred eighteen nurses completed all 15 assessments; nearly half held a bachelors' degree in nursing (189, 45%), more than two-thirds worked in an inpatient acute care settings (277, 68%), and 293 (70%) were not certified in wound care.

METHODS

After providing written informed consent and completing the participant demographics form, participants assessed 15 photographs of wounds with accompanying moisture descriptions and completed an algorithm and dressing selection for each. All responses were anonymously collected by the program. Existing, retrospective, program data were also downloaded and data from nurses who completed all assessments were extracted and analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze all variables. Selection outcomes and survey responses between nurses who were and who were not wound care certified were compared using a 2-sample Student t test assuming unequal variances. Individual responses for the first 6 wounds were compared to the last 6 wounds using a paired t test.

RESULTS

The mean (M) proportions of fully or partially correct (operationally defined as safe but not fully correct) algorithm and dressing choice were 81% (SE: 0.88, 95% confidence level: 1.73) and 78.1% (SE: 0.70, 95% confidence level: 1.39), respectively. Wound care-certified nurses had higher mean algorithm scores than those who were not certified (M: 89.2%, SE: 1.27 vs M: 77.8%, SE: 1.10, P < .001). Most incorrect/partially correct choices were attributable to incorrect necrotic tissue assessment (n = 845, 58%). The difference between fully correct first 6 and last 6 algorithm choices was statistically significant (M: 310, SE: 0.02 vs M: 337, SE: 9.32, P = .04). On a Likert scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very), average scores for ease of program and algorithm use, educational value, and usefulness for clinicians ranged from M: 4.14, SE: 0.08 to M: 4.22, SE: 0.08.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that the algorithm is valid and has potential educational value. Initial evaluation also suggests that program refinements are needed. Evaluation of participant responses indicated potential problems with the definitions used for necrotic tissue or assessment knowledge deficits. Results also substantiate the importance of instructional design and testing online education programs. More research is needed to uncover potential gaps in nurses' wound care knowledge that may hamper evidence-based practices adoption and the need to develop effective, evidence-based education-delivery techniques.

Wet-to-Dry Dressings Do Not Provide Moist Wound Healing

The purpose of this study was to determine if using advanced wound care dressings leads to improved outcomes as compared to wet-to-dry dressings. Based on a review of literature published in the last eight years, with the exception of one landmark article published in 2001, strong support was found that advanced wound care dressings improved outcomes when compared to wet-to-dry dressings. Some of the outcomes compared were healing time, pain, infection rates, and costs; several articles took it a step further stating that the use of wet-to-dry dressings is considered sub-standard practice. The articles provided evidence-based support for the use of moist wound healing.

Evidence, research, and clinical practice: a patient-centered framework for progress in wound care

Traditional criteria used in selecting wound care interventions are being slowly replaced with an evidence-based practice approach. The value of such an approach for providing optimal care has been established, but the definition of evidence-based care and the process used to generate evidence continue to evolve. For example, the role of studies developed to demonstrate efficacy, randomized controlled trials, the value of effectiveness studies designed to evaluate outcomes in real world practice, and the use of disease-oriented (interim) study outcomes for wound care research, such as reduces wound fluid or improves granulation tissue formation, have been topics of international conversations and consensus documents. In addition, the use in some clinical studies and most systematic study reviews of ingredient or characteristic-based categories to group products that may not share a common operational definition of how they function has led to a high variability in outcomes, resulting in inconclusive or low-level evidence. These concerns and debates, along with their influence on practice, may cast doubt on the value of evidence-based practice guidelines for some clinicians, slowing their rate of implementation, and extending the discussion about definitions of evidence-based care and the relative merits of various research designs. At the same time, amid growing concerns about medical device safety, clinicians must answer 3 questions about an intervention and its related products or devices in order to provide safe and effective care: (1) Can it work? (2) Does it work? (3) Is it worth it? Reviewing current knowledge about wound care, wound treatment modalities, and the basic principles of research within the existing framework of questions to be answered suggests a clear path toward obtaining much-needed evidence. In wound care, using clearly defined processes to study patient-centered outcomes (eg, quality of life, complete healing) and only product groupings that meet an operational definition of functioning (eg, moisture-retentive) will help clinicians decide whether an intervention can work and does work and whether the value of the clinical and economic benefits is greater than the potential harm and cost.