4.1 Article

Clinical assessment of a foam dressing containing growth factor-enhancing hydrated polyurethanes

Journal

JOURNAL OF WOUND CARE
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 608-618

Publisher

MA HEALTHCARE LTD
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2018.27.9.608

Keywords

BOOST-CLOSURE study; epithelialisation phase; growth factor boosting; hydrated polyurethanes; wound

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study assesses a novel dressing concept in venous leg ulcer (VLU) patients. It is based on boosting endogenous growth factor activities synthesised by functional granulation tissue. Methods: Patients received treatment for eight weeks with a hydrated polyurethane-containing foam dressing plus concomitant compression therapy. Wound area reduction (WAR), percentage of wounds achieving a relative WAR of >= 40% and >= 60%, wound pain ratings for the last 24 hours and at dressing changes, EQ-5D Quality of Life questionnaire data, dressing handling and safety parameters were recorded. Results: There were 128 patients who received treatment and data for 123 wound treatment courses were documented. Wound area size decreased from 13.3 +/- 9.8cm(2) to 10.5 +/- 12.2cm(2) at week eight and median relative WAR was 48.8%. At week eight, a relative WAR >= 40% was reached by 54.5% of the wounds, 41.5% reached a relative WAR of >= 60% and complete healing was observed in 13.5% of wounds. Median wound pain ratings (last 24 hours before dressing change) declined significantly from 30 to 15.5 (100 visual analogue scale [VAS), p=0.0001) and pain at dressing changes from 30 to 12.5 (1)5.0.0001). The EQ-5D VAS rating increased from 58.4 +/- 19.2mm to 63.1 +/- 19.1mm (p=0.0059). Conclusion: This clinical assessment shows that the concept of boosting endogenous growth factors through hydrated polyurethanes has the potential to accelerate WAR in VLU patients while decreasing pain levels and improving quality of life parameters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available