ADAPTIC TOUCH®: Optimised design for optimal ... - Systagenix

1940 August 2011NEWSADAPTIC TOUCH®:Optimised design for optimal performanceSeveral in-vitro, in-vivo and case studies have shown that the advanced mesh design of ADAPTICTOUCH® means minimised risk of exudate pooling and secondary dressing adherence 1-5Optimally sized pores for free passage of exudateIn-vivo and case studies show that the open meshstructure of ADAPTIC TOUCH® allows free passage ofexudate into the secondary dressing and reduces thechance of maceration 1-5 .Though the mean pore size of ADAPTIC TOUCH ® isonly 0.312 mm 2 , the open area is 24% of thedressing. In comparison the mean pore size ofMepitel is a lot larger at 1.070 mm 2 , however theopen area of the dressing is a lot less, at 13%.Several studies conclude that the pore size employedin ADAPTIC TOUCH® both facilitates fluidtransmission 1, 3-5 and helps prevent secondarydressing adherence 1,2,4,5 (more about that on thenext page).Fig 1 The pore size and dressing design allows visibility ofthe wound beneath without the need to remove dressingand disturb the wound 1Good performance with NPWTAn in-vitro experiment clearlydemonstrates that ADAPTIC TOUCH®allows the passage of fluid when usedunder the foam component of the NPWTsystem 1 . ADAPTIC TOUCH® can also beused under compression.Fig 2 In-vitro experiment 1

NEWSOptimally sized pores to minimise the risk ofboth primary and secondary dressingadherence 1Preventing dressing adherence minimisespatient pain and trauma at dressing change,whilst minimising tissue damage on dressingremoval. The smaller pore size of ADAPTICTOUCH® reduces risk of secondary dressingadherence to wound bed through the pores ofthe dressing 1 .An in-vivo study showed that the larger poresize of Mepitel may mean increased risk of thesecondary dressing adhering to the wound bedthrough the primary layer, which may lead totissue damage and pain during dressing changeand removal 1 .Fig 3 Mepitel photo shows removal of absorbentsecondary dressing 2 . This level of adherence was seen in1 of 7 wounds.As for Urgotul, on primary dressing removal,substantial bleeding and trauma to the woundwas visible. The author also concluded that thedressing may become embedded within thewound surface, and under highly exudingconditions, dressings did not stay in place 1 .Fig 4 Urgotul had the highest score for trauma on removal of allof the dressings evaluated, showing substantial bleeding 1.References:1. Stephens S. et al., Evaluation of a non-adhering silicone wound contact dressing with optimised designfor the management of dry to heavily exuding wounds (in vitro/vivo). Poster, Wounds UK 2010.2. Stephens S. et al., In-Vitro Evaluation of a New Non-Adhering Silicone Primary Wound Contact Layer,Poster WIC 2011.3. Stephens S. et al., Evaluation of the free passage of fluid through a non-adhering silicone wound contactlayer (in vitro). Poster, WIC 2011.4. Product review: ADAPTIC TOUCH ® non-adherent dressing, Bianchi, J. and Gray, D., Wounds UK Journal2011 Vol 7 No 1 Pp 120-123 .5. Ivins N, and Harding, K G: A series of case studies using a non­-adhering silicone dressing, Poster,EWMA 2011.Let’s Talk…To learn more about the benefits of ADAPTIC TOUCH®, contactyour Systagenix representative or visit www.systagenix.com© Systagenix Wound Management 2011. Brands marked with ® or are trademarks of Systagenix. Allother products referenced herein are acknowledged to be trademarks of their respective owners.