In Vitro Characterisation and Evaluation of Different Types of Wound Dressing Materials

M. Uzun^1, , S.C. Anand¹ and T. Shah¹

¹Institute for Materials Research and Innovation, The University of Bolton, Bolton, UK

Cite this paper:
M. Uzun, S.C. Anand and T. Shah. In Vitro Characterisation and Evaluation of Different Types of Wound Dressing Materials. Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology. 2013; 1(1):1-7. doi: 10.12691/jbet-1-1-1

Abstract

In recent years, textile based wound dressing products have grown from simple gauze to smart dressings with considerable technical and commercial impact. Today, wound dressings are manufactured from a large variety of different materials and applied in all phases of wound healing. In this study, commercially available wound dressing products were investigated and compared in vitro. The dressings tested and evaluated vary in their components and structures and basically fell into three main groups: nonwoven, foam and hydroactive dressing products. This study tested and analysed the properties of 13 different commercial dressings: 5 nonwoven, 5 foam and 3 hydroactive dressings. Standard test methods were employed during the study in order to determine the fluid handling capability, dehydration rate, vertical wicking, absorption behaviour and pH values of the dressings. These characteristics have profound effect on the performance of the dressings as wound care biomedical materials. It was found that the nonwoven fibrous dressings have better absorbency characteristics than foam and hydroactive dressings and the nonwoven dressings also had lower pH value compared to the foam and hydroactive dressings.

Keywords:
fluid handling gelling and swelling in vitro characterisation wound dressing

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Enoch S, Leaper D J. Basic science of wound healing. Surgery (Oxford) 2005; 26: 31-37.
[2]	Dale J. Wound dressings. Prof Nurse 1997; 12: 12-18.
[3]	Dyson M, Young S, Pendle L, Webster DF, et al. Comparison of the effects of moist and dry conditions on dermal repair. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 1988; 91(5): 435-439.
[4]	Hutchinson JJ, McGuckin M. Occlusive Dressings: A microbiologic and clinical review. American Journal of Infection Control 1990; 18(4): 257-268.
[5]	Hutchinson JJ, Lawrence JC. Wound Infection under occlusive dressings. Journal of Hospital Infection 1991; 17: 83-94.
[6]	Lawrence JC. Dressings and Wound Infection. American Journal of Surgery 1994; 167.
[7]	Torrance C. The physiology of wound healing. Nursing 1986; 5: 162-166.
[8]	Pray WS, Nonprescription product therapeutics. New York, Lippincott Williams&Wilkins; 2006. 2th Ed.
[9]	Boateng JS, Matthews KH, Stevens HN, Eccleston GM. Wound healing dressings and drug delivery systems: A review. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2008; 97; 2892-2923.
[10]	Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ, Hollinworth H. Understanding wound pain and trauma: an international perspective. EWMA Position Document: Pain at wound dressing changes 2002: 2-7.
[11]	Baranoski S, Ayello E. Wound Care Essentials: Practice Principles. New York, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003.
[12]	ASTM 1997d Standard practice for conditioning textiles for testing. (D-1776-90). American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 483-446.
[13]	BS EN 12127:1998, Textiles Fabrics Determination of mass per unit area using small samples, ISBN 0 580 29132 4, British Standard Institute 1998.
[14]	Textiles, Test methods for nonwovens, Part 2: Determination of thickness, BS EN ISO 9073-2:1997. British Standard Institute 1997.
[15]	BS EN 13726-1:2002, Test methods for primary wound dressings. Aspect of absorbency, BSI, ISBN 0 580 39510 3, British Standard Institute 2002.
[16]	Parsons D, Bowler GB, Myles V, Jones S. Silver antimicrobial dressings in wound management: A comparison of antibacterial, physical, and chemical characteristics. Wounds 2005; 17 (8): 222-232.
[17]	Swenson M, Atwood N, Solfest S. Physical performance characteristic comparisons adhesive bordered foam wound dressings. 3M Health Care 2004; Minnesota, USA.
[18]	Meftahi R, Khajavi A, Rashidi M, Sattari ME, et al. The effects of cotton gauze coating with microbial cellulose. Cellulose 2010; 17:199-204.
[19]	BS EN 13726-2:2001, Test methods for primary wound dressings. Part 1: Aspect of Absorbency, Section 3.6, Dispersion characteristics, British Standard Institute 2001.
[20]	Thomas S, Hughes G, Fram P, Hallett A. An ‘in-vitro’ comparison of the physical characteristics of hydrocolloids, hydrogels, foams, and alginate/cmc fibrous dressing. Surgical Materials Testing Laboratory, Bridgend, S.Wales, 2005.
[21]	Uzun M, Anand SC, Shah T, and Lee B. A Comparative study of physical properties of carboxymethylcellulose and alginate fibres. COVITEX, Pakistan, 13-14 March 2011.
[22]	Thomas S, Loveless P, A comparative study of the properties of twelve hydrocolloid dressings. World Wide Wounds, 1997.
[23]	ASTM D737-96, Air Permeability, Standard Test Method for Air Permeability of Textile Fabrics. American Society for Testing and Materials 2004.
[24]	Cockbill SME. Dressings in wound management. Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology, Informa Healthcare USA 2007: 1023-1038.
[25]	Zahedi P, Rezaeian I, Siadar SOR, et al. A review on wound dressings with an emphasis on electrospun nanofibrous polymeric bandages. Polymer Advanced Technologies 2010; 21:77-95.
[26]	Leveen HH. Chemical acidification of wounds: An adjuvant to healing and the unfavourable action on alkalinity and ammonia. Ann Surg 1973; 178:745-53.
[27]	Bradley M, Cullum N, Nelson EA, et all. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (2) Dressings and topical agents used in the healing of chronic wounds. Health Technology Assessment 1999; 3: 17.
[28]	Tsukada K, Tokunaga K, Iwama T, Mishima Y, The pH changes of pressure ulcers related to the healing process of wounds. Wounds 1992; 4(1): 16-20.
[29]	Wilson M, Henry M, Quill R, Byrne P, The pH of varicose ulcer surfaces and its relationsip to healing. VASA 1979; 8: 339-42.
[30]	Hunt TK, Beckert S, Therapeutical and practical aspects of oxygen in wound healing. In: Lee B (ed) The Wound Management Manual. New York, McGraw-Hill Medical 2000.
[31]	Schneider LA, Korber A, Grabbe S, Dissemond J, Influence of pH on wound-healing: a new perspective for wound-therapy? Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2007; 298: 413-420.
[32]	Liu X, Lin T, Fang J, et al. In vivo wound healing and antibacterial performance of electrospun nanofibre membranes, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A2010; 94A:499-508.
[33]	Sirousazar, M., Kokabi, M. and Yari, M. Mass transfer during the pre-usage dehydration of polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel wound dressings. Iranian J of Phar Sci. 2008; 4(1): 51-56.