Physical, morphological, and wound healing properties of a polyurethane foam-film dressing
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Background We investigated the physicochemical properties of Medifoam® N and its wound healing performance compared to other commercially available polyurethane (PU) foam dressing in vitro and in vivo to gain insight in their clinical performance. Methods Wound contact layer and cross-section of eleven polyurethane foam dressings were assessed with field-emission scanning electron microscope. Thickness, density, tensile strength, elongation, moisture-vapor transmission rate (MVTR), retention and absorptivity were measured to compare physical properties. Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution absorption patterns were compared. An animal model for wound-healing was applied to validate in vitro findings. Results Among eleven tested foam dressings, Medifoam® N has the smallest pore and cell sizes with excellent uniformity, i.e. it has 25 ~ 75 μm on the wound contact layer and 100 ~ 350 μm in the cross-section while other dressings have a larger pose size with larger variability. Compared to other PU foams, Medifoam® N also has moderate thickness, density, tensile strength, elongation and MVTR. Furthermore, it has excellent fluid absorption and retention capacity. These intrinsic properties of Medifoam® N contributed to improve fluid absorption patterns, i.e. other dressing material flawed out PBS solution on the dressings while Medifoam® N retained all the tested solutions. In animal wound-healing study, Medifoam® N treated animals showed excellent angiogenesis and collagen deposition even though epithelial recovery rate was not significantly different to other dressings. Conclusions Medifoam® N has optimized physical properties and thus improved fluid absorption/retention capacity. Compared to other dressings, Medifoam® N showed excellent fluid absorption patterns and these characteristics contributed to improved wound healing and excellent angiogenic potential. We found that Medifoam® N showed the best results among the employed dressing samples.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Wound Healing and Treatments · Polymer composites and self-healing · Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Genewel Co. Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea.
Mundipharma Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Singapore.
Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 602-739, Republic of Korea.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1186/1472-6882-1-210.1186/1472-6882-1-2 ↗
2. 10.1016/B978-0-12-410540-9.00001-610.1016/B978-0-12-410540-9.00001-6 ↗
3. 10.4085/1062-6050-44.5.53110.4085/1062-6050-44.5.531 ↗
4. 10.1016/S0921-8831(09)00247-710.1016/S0921-8831(09)00247-7 ↗
5. Khan TA, Peh KK, Ch’ng HS. Mechanical, bioadhesive strength and biological evaluations of chitosan films for wound dressing. J Pharm Pharmaceutical Sci. 2000;3:303–11.
6. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.01.00510.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.01.005 ↗
7. 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00140-410.1016/S0142-9612(99)00140-4 ↗
8. 10.1002/jab.77003040810.1002/jab.770030408 ↗
9. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31827104fb10.1097/SCS.0b013e31827104fb ↗
10. 10.1177/08853282870020040410.1177/088532828700200404 ↗
11. 10.4085/1062-6050-43.6.60010.4085/1062-6050-43.6.600 ↗
12. Zoellner P, Kapp H, Smola H. A prospective, open-label study to assess the clinical performance of a foam dressing in the management of chronic wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2006;52:34–6. 38, 40–42.
13. 10.1089/wound.2011.032110.1089/wound.2011.0321 ↗
14. Kirby P. Quality of life, exudate management and the Biatain foam dressing range. Br J Nurs. 2008;17(S32):S34–7.
15. ASTM D3574-11 Standard test methods for flexible cellular materials -slab bonded and molded urethane foams.
16. EN 13726–2:2002 Test methods for primary wound dressings. Moisture vapour transmission rate of permeable film dressings.
17. EN 13726–1:2002 Test methods for primary wound dressings. Aspects of absorbency.
18. 10.1242/jcs.114.23.433510.1242/jcs.114.23.4335 ↗
19. Gist S, Tio-Matos I, Falzgraf S, Cameron S, Beebe M. Wound care in the geriatric client. Clin Interv Aging. 2009;4:269–87.
20. Thomas S. Laboratory findings on the exudate-handling capabilities of cavity foam and foam-film dressings. J Wound Care. 2013;19(192):194–9.
21. Jang SS, Minn KE. Wound dressing after CO2 laser resurfacing using a new dressing material: Medifoam®. J Korean Soc Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2002;8:149–54.
22. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182402c8910.1097/PRS.0b013e3182402c89 ↗
23. 10.1177/002203450935912510.1177/0022034509359125 ↗
24. Yoo SC Han SK Shin YW Ho HW Choi YJ Chung DS Lee BI Kim WK. Comparison of Effect of Polyurethane Foam Dressings on Epithelialization of White Rat. J. Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;30:231–236.
25. Li X-C, Qiao L, Huang X-Q, Yuan K-J, Yang H-Z. Clinical evaluation of polyurethane foam dressing on wound healing of skin graft donor site. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ (Medical Science). 2013;33:663.