OBJECTIVETo compare the properties of water-absorption, water-locking, and air permeability among several foam dressings, and to provide references for clinician in choosing dressings for different types of wounds.

METHODSThe comparison was made among Allevyn foam dressing, Mepilex foam dressing, and Biatain foam dressing that were commonly used in clinic. NaCl and CaCl2·H2O respectively in the weight of 8.3 g and 0.367 g were diluted with distilled water to the volume of 1 L to simulate wound exudation. The simulated wound exudation was used to test the water-absorbing rate of dressings at post immersion hour (PIH) 24, water-absorbing speed of dressings at post immersion minute (PIM) 1, 5, 10, and 20, the diffusion diameter of exudation dripped on the surface of dressings for 5 min to reflect the water-locking capacity of dressings, and the water evaporation capacity of exudation after being sealed up by dressings for 24 h to reflect the air permeability of dressings. Five samples of each dressing were used for each index. Data were processed with one-way analysis of variance and analysis of variance of repeated measurement, and LSD method was applied in paired comparison.

RESULTS(1) The water-absorbing rate at PIH 24 of Allevyn foam dressing, Mepilex foam dressing, and Biatain foam dressing were respectively (646 ± 18)%, (616 ± 19)%, and (499 ± 11)% (F = 423.854, P < 0.01). The differences between each two dressings in water-absorbing rate were statistically significant (with P values all below 0.01). (2) The water-absorbing speed of Allevyn foam dressing at PIM 1, 5, 10, and 20 were (35.20 ± 2.31), (12.48 ± 0.37), (6.63 ± 0.23), and (3.39 ± 0.08) g×s(-1)×m(-2), which were obviously lower than those of Mepilex foam dressing [(119.68 ± 2.59), (24.39 ± 0.62), (12.33 ± 0.29), and (6.18 ± 0.13) g×s(-1)×m(-2)] and Biatain foam dressing [(121.09 ± 3.41), (24.73 ± 0.52), (12.37 ± 0.25), (6.18 ± 0.13) g×s(-1)×m(-2)], with P values all below 0.01. The water-absorbing speed of each dressing showed the trend of declination among three dressings with prolongation of time. The differences between two adjacent time points within each dressing in water-absorbing speed were statistically significant (with P values below 0.01). (3) Diffusion diameters of exudation dripped on the surface of Allevyn foam dressing, Mepilex foam dressing, and Biatain foam dressing were respectively (5.66 ± 0.15), (4.84 ± 0.15), (3.94 ± 0.21) cm (F = 124.742, P < 0.01). The differences between each two of the three dressings in diffusion diameter were statistically significant (with P values all below 0.01). (4) The water evaporation capacity of exudation after being sealed up by each dressing for 24 h decreased in succession for Allevyn foam dressing, Mepilex foam dressing, and Biatain foam dressing, which were respectively (31.2 ± 3.1), (29.7 ± 8.7), (5.6 ± 2.8) g×h(-1)×m(-2) (F = 24.324, P < 0.01). The water evaporation capacity of exudation sealed with Biatain foam dressing was significantly lower than that of exudation sealed with Allevyn foam dressing and Mepilex foam dressing (with P values below 0.01).

CONCLUSIONSAmong the three kinds of foam dressings, Allevyn performs best in water-absorbing rate, water-locking capacity, and air permeability, while Mepilex and Biatain perform best in water-absorbing speed. For selecting foam dressing in clinic, the properties of foam dressings and wound characteristics should be considered at the same time.