Search

This article describes the contemporary bioengineering theory and practice of evaluating the fluid handling performance of foam-based dressings, with focus on the important and clinically relevant engineering structure-function relationships and on advanced laboratory testing methods for pre-clinical quantitative assessments of this common type of wound dressings. The effects of key wound dressing material-related and treatment-related physical factors on the absorbency and overall fluid handling of foam-based dressings are thoroughly and quantitively analysed. Discussions include exudate viscosity and temperature, action of mechanical forces and the dressing microstructure and associated interactions. Based on this comprehensive review, we propose a newly developed testing method, experimental metrics and clinical benchmarks that are clinically relevant and can set the standard for robust fluid handling performance evaluations. The purpose of this evaluative framework is to translate the physical characteristics and performance determinants of a foam dressing into achievable best clinical outcomes. These guiding principles are key to distinguishing desirable properties of a dressing that contribute to optimal performance in clinical settings., Funding agency:Mölnlycke Health Care AB

The aim of this article is to identify and describe clinical practice performance characteristics for bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds. Our recently published systematic review of outcomes and applied measurement instruments for the use of bordered foam dressings in complex wounds has led to us identifying a range of important clinical and patient-centred issues related to this dressing class. Specifically, here, we focus on an overview of performance criteria in the areas of application, adhesion, exudate management and debridement functions of bordered foam dressings. Our hope is that by highlighting the clinical performance criteria, future testing standards for wound dressings will more closely match our clinical expectations and, thereby, assist clinicians to make better wound treatment choices based on meaningful and clinically relevant dressing product performance standards. complex wounds, complex wound care, treatment, bordered foam dressings, dressing performance., Funding agency:International Wound Dressing Technology Expert Panel (IWDTEP)

AIM: The aim of this project was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds. METHODS: The research project followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and consisted of two phases. The first phase prepared the background and process, while the second phase had three steps: outcome list generation via systematic review and qualitative study, Delphi consensus study, and consensus meeting. The study has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database. RESULTS: The systematic review resulted in 82 outcomes and 20 additional outcomes were obtained during the interviews. After refinement, 111 panellists from 23 countries rated a list of 51 outcomes. In the following consensus meeting, six outcomes were prioritized to be included in the core outcome set. After the consensus meeting, a patient-reported outcome was added to the core outcome set. CONCLUSION: The COS for evaluating the effectiveness of bordered foam dressings in treating complex wounds includes 7 outcomes: "ability to stay in place", "leakage", "pain", "dressing related periwound skin changes", "change in wound size over time", and "overall satisfaction". These identified outcomes are correlated with contemporary bioengineering testing and evaluation methods for dressing performance, which underpins the need for a close multidisciplinary collaboration to advance the field of wound dressings. The outcome 'overall satisfaction' reflects the impact of complex wounds and their treatment on a patient's daily life. The use of these outcomes is recommended to improve data synthesis and promote evidence-based practice. Future developments in COS development involve creating measurement instruments and relevant endpoints for these outcomes., Funding agency:Mölnlycke Health Care (Gothenburg, Sweden)

SIGNIFICANCE: Wounds of all types remain one of the most important, expensive and common medical problems, e.g., up to approximately two-thirds of the work time of community nurses is spent on wound management. Many wounds are treated by means of dressings. The materials used in a dressing, their microarchitecture and how they are composed and constructed form the basis for the laboratory and clinical performances of any advanced dressing. Recent Advances: The established structure-function principle in material science is reviewed and analyzed in this article in the context of wound dressings. This principle states that the microstructure determines the physical, mechanical, and fluid transport and handling properties, all of which are critically important for, and relevant to the adequate performances of wound dressings. CRITICAL ISSUES: According to the above principle, once the clinical requirements for wound care and management are defined for a given wound type and etiology, it should be theoretically possible to translate clinically-relevant characteristics of dressings into physical test designs resulting specific metrics of materials, mechanical, and fluid transport and handling properties, all of which should be determined to meet the clinical objectives and be measurable through standardized bench testing. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: This multidisciplinary review article, written by an International Wound Dressing Technology Expert Panel, discusses the translation of clinical wound care and management into effective, basic engineering standard testing requirements from wound dressings with respect to material types, microarchitecture and properties, to achieve the desirable performance in supporting healing and improving the quality of life of patients., Funding agency:Mölnlycke Health Care (Gothenburg, Sweden)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review article was to identify reported outcomes and measurement instruments used in clinical research on bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed interface), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched using a combination of key terms including; wounds, bordered foam dressing, and treatment. Studies were included if they (1) targeted an adult population, (2) addressed the treatment of complex wounds with a bordered foam dressing as the primary wound dressing, (3) were retrieved from original research, and (4) were published between 2000 and 2022. There were no restrictions on language or study design. Studies that focused primarily on the prevention of complex wounds were excluded. Data extraction included outcome domains, outcomes, instruments, time points, and outcome measures. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 was used as a conceptual framework for the extraction of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 24 outcome domains and 82 outcomes were identified. The outcomes were categorised into five core areas: (1) impact on life, (2) dressing performance, (3) pathophysiological manifestations, (4) resource use, and (5) adverse events. Thirtynine outcomes (47.0%) were measured at more than one time point. The most frequently reported time point was 'at the end of treatment' (62.7%). Outcomes were measured using self-report instruments, clinical observations, and bio-physiological instruments. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified reported outcomes and measurement instruments in research on bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds. The variety and lack of consistency in terms of instruments, time points and outcome measurements made it difficult to compare data directly across different reported studies. A solution to the variety in outcome reporting across studies in complex wound care, and moreover for the

Funding agency:Mölnlycke Health Care (Gothenburg, Sweden)

Dianne Crellin,1– 3 Denise Harrison,1,2,4 Nick Santamaria,1 Franz E Babl2,3,5 1Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 2Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 3Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 4Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 5Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaCorrespondence: Dianne Crellinc/o Emergency Department, Royal Children’s Hospital, Flemington Road Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, AustraliaTel +61 39345 5331Fax +61 9345 5983Email dianne.crellin@rch.org.auPurpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric data and feasibility and clinical utility of the Face Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability scale (FLACC), the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS) and the Visual Analogue Scale for observers (VASobs) used to assess procedural pain in infants and young children.Patients and Methods: Twenty-six clinicians assessed videorecorded segments of 100 infants and young children who underwent a painful and/or distressing procedure in the emergency department using the FLACC scale, the MBPS and the VASobs pain and VASobs distress.Results: VASobs pain scores were lowest across all procedures and phases of procedures (p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability was lowest for VASobs pain scores (ICC 0.55). Sensitivity and specificity were highest for FLACC scores (94.9% and 72.5%, respectively) at the lowest cut-off score (pain score two). Observers changed their MBPS scores more often than they changed FLACC or VASobs scores, but FLACC scores were more often incomplete. Reviewers did not consider any scale of use for procedural pain measurement.Conclusion: The reliability and sensitivity of the FLACC and MBPS were supported by study data but concerns about the capacity of these scales to distinguish between pain- and non