The clinical impact of hydro-responsive dressings in dynamic wound healing: Part II.

OBJECTIVE: Over the course of a wound's healing trajectory, whether the wound is acute or hard-to-heal, management is likely to involve the use of several different dressing types. Minimising the complexity of treatment (in terms of dressing usage) would aid clinicians in providing effective wound care but excellent clinical outcomes must remain the primary goal. METHOD: This study was an open-labelled, non-comparative study assessing the clinical effectiveness of a coordinated wound dressing treatment regimen. After an initial phase of using a hydro-responsive wound dressing (HydroClean, HRWD-1, PAUL HARTMANN AG, Germany) to cleanse and debride hard-to-heal wounds, the wounds were subsequently treated with either HydroTac (HRWD-2, PAUL HARTMANN AG, Germany) (to maintain healing progression and re-epithelialisation) or RespoSorb (a superabsorbent dressing, PAUL HARTMANN AG, Germany) (to manage moderate-to-high levels of exudate). The Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) assessment tool was used to measure the wound status over the course of the treatment period and to assess several wound status parameters (for example, wound area, exudate levels and wound characteristics such as level of re-epithelialisation). RESULTS: The results from this study demonstrated that wounds treated with HRWD-2 showed a positive healing response when using the PUSH score assessment tool with a significant mean reduction (p<0.0001) in the PUSH score of wounds treated with HRWD-2, with >75% of wounds being closed by the end of the study. This result underlines the effectiveness of HRWD-2 in supporting healing progression. CONCLUSION: The results from this study support the coordinated use of HRWDs for the effective management and treatment of a variety of hard-to-heal wounds.

The clinical impact of hydroresponsive dressings in dynamic wound healing: Part I.

OBJECTIVE: Management of any wound, either acute or hard-to-heal, might involve the use of multiple and different wound dressings in its treatment. This approach is necessary to overcome the myriad of clinical challenges the wound presents, as well as any underlying comorbidities that might affect the clinical outcomes. This article describes the clinical effectiveness of a coordinated wound dressing treatment regimen. METHOD: This was an open-labelled non-comparative study involving patients with a variety of hard-to-heal and acute wounds of differing levels of severity, but all of which required removal of devitalised tissue to enable wound healing to progress. The first phase used the hydroresponsive wound dressing HydroClean (PAUL HARTMANN AG, Germany). The PUSH score was used as the primary measurement parameter. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients (38 male/48 female), with a mean age of 67.7±21.7 years, took part in the study. The results showed that the hydroresponsive dressing was effective in managing wound exudate production and promoting wound cleansing and debridement, supporting good wound bed preparation. Wound closure was observed in 16/86 (18.6%) wounds at the end of the study (20 weeks). This enabled clinicians to switch to alternative wound dressings to promote subsequent clinical healing outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this study, the hydroresponsive wound dressing was highly effective in preparing a clean wound bed such that the next stage of wound healing could be supported.