Clinical study results

Kogan, et al. 2004

In a comparative study of AQUACEL ® Dressing and Silverol™ (Teva Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd.) in patients with partial-thickness burns, AQUACEL ® Dressing:1

  • Was associated with less pain during and immediately after dressing changes

Vloeman, et al. 2001

In a non-comparative study of 84 patients with partial-thickness burns receiving AQUACEL ® Dressing:2

  • In 50% of patients, the wounds healed completely within 10 days (range = 1-17)
  • On average 82.9% of the original burn area healed without surgical intervention
  • 67 patients required only 1 dressing application (1.6 dressing changes were undertaken on the remaining patients)
clinical_study

Piaggesi, et al. 2001

In a randomised trial of 20 patients with diabetic foot ulcers comparing AQUACEL ® Dressing with saline-moistened gauze for the management of deep diabetic foot ulcers:3

  • Wounds managed with the AQUACEL ® Dressing demonstrated a significantly shorter healing time compared to saline-moistened gauze (P<0.01)
days_to_heal
  • Rate of granulation and reduction in lesional volume were significantly better in deep diabetic foot ulcers managed with AQUACEL® Dressing than in those managed with saline-moistened gauze (P<0.01)

Harding, et al. 2001

In a randomised controlled trial of 131 patients, comparing AQUACEL ® Dressing versus an alginate dressing, the following was observed4:

  • The mean wear time was significantly greater in the AQUACEL ® Dressing group versus the alginate dressing group (P<0.001)
  • Of the patients who healed, those in the AQUACEL® Dressing group healed 14 days faster than those in the alginate group (P=0.053)
  • Ease of removal was rated by the investigator as excellent in 51% of the AQUACEL ® Dressing group versus 24% in the alginate group (P=0.006)
  • Ability to contain exudate was rated by the investigator excellent in 44% of the AQUACEL ® Dressing group compared to 20% in the alginate group (P=0.002)

Dillon J, et al. 2007

In a randomised study of 428 patients, comparing AQUACEL ® Dressing covered with DuoDerm® Extra Thin dressing (Jubilee method n=242) and AQUACEL ® Dressing covered with Mepore™ a(standard method n=186), following total hip and knee arthroplasty:5

  • There was a 1.5% blister rate in the Jubilee group vs 18.3% in the standard group (P<0.0001)
  • Wear time in the Jubilee group was 1.5 days longer than the standard group (P<0.0001)
  • The Jubilee group required less than half the number of dressing changes than the standard group (P<0.0001)
  • Surgical site infection was shown to be lower in the Jubilee group (0.8%) versus standard group (3.2%) (P=0.03)
tab3

Abuzakuk, et al. 2006

In a randomised study of 61 patients, comparing AQUACEL ® Dressing with a central pad dressing (Mepore™,a) for the management of closed wounds following lower limb arthroplasty:6

  • 43% of patients in the AQUACEL ® Dressing group required dressing changes before postoperative day 5 versus 77% in the central pad (Mepore™)a group (P=0.001)
  • 13% of patients in the AQUACEL ® Dressing group developed blisters compared with 26% in the central pad group (P=0.22).

Ravenscroft, et al. 2001

In a randomised controlled trial of 183 patients, comparing AQUACEL ® Dressing (covered with Tegaderm™,b) with Cutiplast™,c, after hip and knee surgery:7

  • Wounds managed with the AQUACEL®/Tegaderm™ dressing combination were 5.8 times more likely to heal without complications than Cutiplast™ treated wounds (P<0.00001)
tab5
tab4
  • Only 2.4% of the wounds managed with AQUACEL®/Tegaderm™ dressing combination had wounds with blisters versus 22.5% in the Cutiplast™ group.
  • "...dressing pain score is statistically lower for the patients receiving the AQUACEL®/Tegaderm™ dressing combination (P<0.001) [than Cutiplast™]"
  • AQUACEL ® Dressing (covered with Tegaderm™) requires on average 3.6 dressing changes, whereas Cutiplast™ requires 4.1 dressing changes (P=0.03)

Foster, et al. 2000

In a study of open surgical wounds in 100 patients comparing AQUACEL ® Dressing with an alginate dressing (Sorbsan™,d):8

  • Mild or no pain was reported by 92% of the patients in the AQUACEL ® Dressing group and 80% of patients in the alginate group
tab2

Foster, et al. 1997

In a randomised trial of 40 patients, comparing AQUACEL ® Dressing with ribbon gauze and proflavine dressing in surgical wounds left to heal by secondary intention:9

  • Patients in the AQUACEL ® Dressing group experienced significantly less pain on removal of the first dressing versus the ribbon gauze group (P=0.006)
  • 60% of wounds managed with AQUACEL ® Dressing responded that the 1st dressing change could have taken place at home versus 15% for ribbon gauze (P=0.02)
  • Pain was a key factor in the ribbon gauze group for patients wishing to have dressings changed in hospital

Print this content
Send to a friend [+]
Thank you for sharing ConvaTec content across the internet. In order for us to send the request we will need you to provide the following information.
* Sender name:
* E-mail from:
* E-mail to:

Find a ConvaTec product

 
13198
http://uk.live.nodeb.convatemp.dk/external-link.aspx
Other ConvaTec websites
Click here to exit

Cookies are needed for this website to work optimally. They also help us to know a little bit about how you use our website, which improves the browsing experience.  Cookies on this site are used for traffic measurement and optimisation of page content only. By continuing to browse on this website, you indicate your consent to the use of cookies.  You may block the use of cookies by following the "How to block and avoid cookies" instructions

Learn more about our Cookie policy