A multi-centre, prospective, clinical in-market evaluation to assess the performance of Opsite™ Post-Op Visible dressings.

The aim of this study was to assess the performance of Opsite™ Post-Op Visible as a post-surgical dressing in a typical clinical setting. In this multi-centre clinical evaluation, patients who underwent clean surgery were treated with Opsite Post-Op Visible dressing. Duration of dressing wear, visibility through the dressing and ability to handle exudate were assessed and the product was rated in comparison with those normally used. A total of 64 patients were recruited. Mean wear time was 4·5 days. Exudate management was rated very good or good at 96% of assessments. Visibility of the incision site was rated as very good or good at 72%, and as acceptable at 24%, of assessments. Patient comfort was rated very comfortable (63%) or comfortable (37%) at all assessments. Dressings were generally rated as satisfactory or exceeding expectations with clinicians stating that the Opsite Post-Op Visible dressing was better than the dressing they routinely used for 92% of patients. Opsite Post-Op Visible dressing is an innovative dressing combining good visibility with exudate management and patient comfort. It was found to have adequate wear time, visibility and exudate management properties making it suitable for use on a variety of surgical incision sites.

Use of a new silver barrier dressing, ALLEVYN Ag in exuding chronic wounds.

Recognising and managing wounds at risk of infection is vital in wound management. ALLEVYN Ag dressings have been designed to manage exudate in chronic wounds that are at risk of infection; are displaying signs of local infection; or where a suspected increase in bacterial colonisation is delaying healing. They combine an absorbent silver sulfadiazine containing hydrocellular foam layer, with a perforated wound contact layer and highly breathable top film. The results presented are from a multi-centre clinical evaluation of 126 patients conducted to assess the performance of ALLEVYN Ag (Adhesive, Non Adhesive and Sacrum dressings) in a range of indications. Clinicians rated the dressings as acceptable for use in various wound types in 88% of patients. The majority of clinical signs of infection reduced between the initial and the final assessment. The condition of wound tissue and surrounding skin was observed to improve, and there was significant evidence of a reduction in the level of exudate from initial to final assessment (p < 0.001). Clinicians rated ALLEVYN Ag as satisfying or exceeding expectations in over 90% of patients. The evaluation showed the dressings to offer real benefits to patients and clinicians across multiple indications when used in conjunction with local protocols.

A prospective, randomized clinical trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of a modern foam dressing versus a traditional saline gauze dressing in the treatment of stage II pressure ulcers.

Modern dressings such as hydrocolloids, gels, and foams are typically more expensive than traditional dressings such as gauze. However, if modern dressings require fewer changes, the overall cost of treatment may be lower despite the higher initial purchase price. If healing rates are comparable or better, modern dressings also may be cost-effective. A 4-week, prospective, randomized clinical trial to assess differences in treatment costs and cost-effectiveness between a modern foam dressing and saline-soaked gauze was conducted among 36 patients (22 men, 14 women, mean age 72.8 years) with a Stage II pressure ulcer (mean duration 35 weeks) at five centers in the United States. Participants were randomized to treatment with a self-adhesive polyurethane foam (n = 20) or saline-soaked gauze dressing (n = 16). No difference in time to wound closure was observed (P = 0.817). Patients in the foam group had less frequent dressing changes (P <0.001). Total cost over the study period was lower by $466 per patient (P = 0.055) and spending on dressings was lower by $92 per patient in the foam group (P = 0.025). Cost per ulcer healed was lower by $1,517 and cost per ulcer-free day was lower by $80 for patients in the foam group. On the evidence of this study, the foam dressing is a more cost-effective treatment than saline-soaked gauze for the treatment of Stage II pressure ulcers.

A prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing hydrosurgery debridement with conventional surgical debridement in lower extremity ulcers.

Debridement of devitalised tissue is an essential component of the effective treatment of chronic wounds. The Versajet Hydrosurgery System is a new technology that simultaneously cuts and aspirates soft tissue. In this study we compared Versajet with conventional surgical techniques in the debridement of lower extremity ulcers to assess impact on time and resources for debridement. Forty-one patients with a mean age of 68 years (range 33 to 95 years) underwent surgical debridement of a lower extremity ulcer. Operating room (OR) sessions were randomised to Versajet (n= 22) or conventional debridement (n= 19) with scalpel plus pulsed lavage. Procedure time and utilisation of consumables were recorded. Wound areas were monitored for 12 weeks. There was significant evidence (P < 0.008) of a shorter debridement time (10.8 min) using Versajet over conventional debridement (17.7 min); a mean saving of 6.9 minutes (39%). In addition, a significant reduction in use of pulsed lavage and saline (P < 0.001) was observed with Versajet. Overall, clinical efficacy of the shorter debridement procedure was similar: median time to wound closure 71 days (Versajet) vs. 74 days (conventional) (P= 0.733). We found Versajet to be quicker than conventional debridement in the debridement of lower extremity ulcers without compromising wound healing. Potential cost savings were identified from the use of VERSAJET through the shorter debridement time allowing more patients to be treated in the same operating schedule.