Journal of wound care
-
Journal of wound care · Sep 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of three primary non-adherent dressings applied to hand surgery wounds.
This study reports the results of a prospective randomised controlled trial that compared three non-adherent wound dressings applied to hand surgery wounds. Paraffin-impregnated gauze (Jelonet) was compared with a cellulose, acetate fibre dressing coated with a petrolatum emulsion (Adaptic) and a polyamide net dressing impregnated with silicone gel (Mepitel). The dressings were assessed for their ease of application and removal, pain on removal and wound appearance. ⋯ It was also more difficult to apply than Jelonet (p < 0.05). We recommend that Adaptic should be used routinely as the non-adherent dressing for incisions or traumatic wounds on the hand. The slight increased difficulty in applying the dressing is outweighed by the major advantages associated with its removal.
-
Journal of wound care · Jul 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparative study of a foam mattress and a water mattress.
In order to determine the effectiveness of high-quality foam replacement mattresses in the treatment of pressure ulcers, one such mattress (TheraRest) was compared with a water mattress (Secutex). One hundred and twenty nursing home patients with pressure ulcers were randomised into two groups and nursed on one of the mattresses for four weeks. ⋯ This difference is not significant. Since high-quality foam mattresses are cheaper in the long term than water mattresses, and are easier for nursing staff to manage, it is suggested that these mattresses are preferable.
-
Journal of wound care · Jun 1999
The economics of preventing and treating pressure ulcers: a pilot study.
A pilot economic evaluation of a projected pressure ulcer prevention policy was carried out in a 252-bed geriatric unit in Glasgow. The aim was to set up a framework for evaluating and comparing the costs and benefits of current care and a potential prevention programme. Data were collated from prevalence and incidence studies. ⋯ Evaluation of the costs and benefits shows that the prevention programme would be cost-effective. The cost would be between 17,606 Pounds and 28,669 Pounds but the benefits would range from 305,506 Pounds to 342,510 Pounds. The authors conclude that economic appraisal is feasible.