Removal of adhesive wound dressing and its effects on the stratum corneum of the skin: comparison of eight different adhesive wound dressings.

In recent years, adhesive wound dressings have been increasingly applied postoperatively because of their ease of use as they can be kept in place without having to cut and apply surgical tapes and they can cover a wound securely. However, if a wound dressing strongly adheres to the wound, a large amount of stratum corneum is removed from the newly formed epithelium or healthy periwound skin. Various types of adhesives are used on adhesive wound dressings and the extent of skin damage depends on how much an adhesive sticks to the wound or skin surface. We quantitatively determined and compared the amount of stratum corneum removed by eight different wound dressings including polyurethane foam using acrylic adhesive, silicone-based adhesive dressing, composite hydrocolloid and self-adhesive polyurethane foam in healthy volunteers. The results showed that wound dressings with silicone adhesive and self-adhesive polyurethane foam removed less stratum corneum, whereas composite hydrocolloid and polyurethane foam using acrylic adhesive removed more stratum corneum.

A model for quantitative evaluation of skin damage at adhesive wound dressing removal.

The removal of adhesive wound dressings from the wound surface involves a risk of damaging the intact stratum corneum and regenerating epithelium. Pain associated with the removal of wound dressings is a major issue for patients and medical personnel. Recently, wound dressings coated with a silicone adhesive have been developed to reduce such skin damage and pain on removal and they have received good evaluation in various clinical settings. However, there is neither a standard method to quantify whether or not the integrity of the stratum corneum and regenerating epithelium is retained or if both structures are damaged by the removal of wound dressings, nor are there standardised values with which to assess skin damage. We applied six different types of adhesive wound dressing on plain copy paper printed with black ink by a laser printer, removed the dressings, examined the adhesive-coated surface of the wound dressings using a high-power videoscope, and examined the stripped areas. Wound dressings coated with a silicone adhesive showed significantly less detachment of the stratum corneum and regenerating epithelium, followed by those coated with polyurethane, hydrocolloid, and acrylic adhesives. The assessment method utilised in this study revealed distinct differences between wound dressing types, but less variation in the evaluation outcome of each type. This assessment method may be useful for the evaluation of adhesive wound dressings, particularly during product development. However, further studies will be needed to examine the effectiveness of this assessment method in the clinical setting because the adherent properties of polyurethane and hydrocolloid adhesives may be altered by the absorption of water from the skin.