Evaluation of the effectiveness of silicone-coated dressings in pediatric surgery
- Authors: Morozov D.A.1,2, Ayrapetyan M.I.1,2, Knyazkina N.T.1, Zhamnova V.S.1, Sukhodolskaya O.V.1
-
Affiliations:
- Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
- Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
- Issue: Vol 15, No 1 (2025)
- Pages: 27-34
- Section: Original Study Articles
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2219-4061/article/view/312981
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/psaic1899
- ID: 312981
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin injuries associated with the adhesive components of medical dressings compromise the barrier function of the skin, delay wound healing, increase the risk of infection, and may cause pain and stress in patients. Evaluation of such injuries is important due to the frequent use of these dressings in clinical practice.
AIM: To compare the use of dressings with silicone wound contact layer and medical adhesive dressings in pediatric surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 100 pediatric patients aged 5 to 17 years who underwent surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Dressings were applied to wounds following minimally invasive laparoscopic access. The study was designed as a prospective, single-center, randomized trial. Patients were randomly assigned using the sealed envelope method into two groups. Group 1 (main group, n=50; mean age, 10.9±2.9 years) received a silicone-based dressing (Cosmopor® Silicone, Paul Hartmann, Germany), whereas group 2 (control group, n=50; mean age, 8.6±3.1 years) received a dressing with medical adhesive (Cosmopor® E Steril, Paul Hartmann, Germany). Skin integrity was assessed both macroscopically and via dermatoscopy at four sites daily over a 7-day period. Skin damage severity was quantified using a mathematical model that accounted for the number of adhesive removals and the surface area of damaged skin.
RESULTS: By postoperative day 7, the incidence of skin damage in group 2 was nine times higher than in the group treated with silicone-coated dressings (36% vs 4%, p =0.001). The average pain score in the control group was 6 points. Dressing changes in the main group were associated with significantly lower pain scores, averaging 1.7 points—3.5 times lower than in the control group (p <0.001). Pre-dressing anxiety levels in group 2 remained high (8.5–6.9 points) throughout hospitalization, while in group 1 they did not exceed 3 points from postoperative day 4 onward.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of silicone-based dressings significantly reduced skin trauma in the postoperative wound area. Pain intensity was 3.5 times lower with silicone dressings compared to adhesive dressings, which also helped minimize pre-procedural anxiety.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Dmitry A. Morozov
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Email: damorozov@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1940-1395
SPIN-code: 8779-8960
MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor
Russian Federation, Moscow; MoscowMaxim I. Ayrapetyan
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Author for correspondence.
Email: Drairmaxim@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0348-929X
SPIN-code: 3683-7312
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant
Professor
Nadezhda T. Knyazkina
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Email: Nadya.knyazkina.11@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9566-0866
Russian Federation, Moscow
Veronika S. Zhamnova
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Email: nikaz.00@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-1635-0913
Russian Federation, Moscow
Olga V. Sukhodolskaya
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Email: betti_olga99@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8868-4763
SPIN-code: 2881-3415
Russian Federation, Moscow
References
- Wang D, Xu H, Chen S, et al. Medical adhesive-related skin injuries and associated risk factors in a pediatric intensive care unit. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2019;32(4):176–182. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000553601.05196.fb
- Kelly-O’Flynn S, Mohamud L, Copson D. Medical adhesive-related skin injury. Br J Nurs. 2020;29(6):S20–S26. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2020.29.6.S20 EDN: AYBNUE
- Ratliff CR. Descriptive study of the frequency of medical adhesive-related skin injuries in a vascular clinic. J Vasc Nurs. 2017;35(2):86–89. doi: 10.1016/j.jvn.2017.01.001
- Kim MJ, Jang JM, Kim HK, et al. Medical adhesives-related skin injury in a pediatric intensive care unit: a single-center observational study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2019;46(6):491–496. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000592
- Konya C, Sanada H, Sugama J, et al. Skin injuries caused by medical adhesive tape in older people and associated factors. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(9-10):1236–1242. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03168.x
- Lichman LL, Katorkin SE, Andreev PS. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of modern self-adhesive silicone postoperative dressings. Ambulatornaya Khirurgiya. 2023;20(2):96–100. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21518/akh2023-028 EDN: DFOKEA
- LeBlanc K, Whiteley I, McNichol L, et al. Peristomal medical adhesive-related skin injury: results of an international consensus meeting. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2019;46(2):125–136. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000513
- Van Tiggelen H, Van Damme N, Theys S, et al. The prevalence and associated factors of skin tears in Belgian nursing homes: a cross-sectional observational study. J Tissue Viability. 2019;28(2):100–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2019.01.003
- Zhao H, He Y, Huang H, et al. Prevalence of medical adhesive-related skin injury at peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site in oncology patients. J Vasc Access. 2018;19(1):23–27. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000805
- Pires-Júnior JF, Chianca TCM, Borges EL, et al. Medical adhesive-related skin injury in cancer patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2021;29:e3500. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.5227.3500 EDN: PXCINZ
Supplementary files
