Clinical evidence
The use of DuoDERM® dressings has proven advantages to support wound healing within a protocol of care.
DuoDERM® dressings are associated with improved healing in chronic wounds compared to traditional dressings1,2 and another hydrocolloid dressing.3
Day, et al. 1995 [+]
There is evidence that wound improvement is more likely with DuoDERM® dressings than other hydrocolloids in the management of pressure sores.
In a prospective, controlled multicenter clinical study of 52 patients it was observed that:3
- 41 of 52 patients had improved wounds when DuoDERM® dressings were used compared with 31 of 51 patients managed with Tegasorb™a (a hydrocolloid dressing).
Singh, et al. 2004 [+]
In a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCT) on hydrocolloid occlusive dressings versus conventional gauze in the healing of chronic wounds:4
- Analysis of the 11 papers that met the inclusion criteria found that complete healing occurred in 51% of ulcers in the hydrocolloid group compared to 38% in the conventional group.
A review of economic studies in wound care management demonstrated that DuoDERM® dressings can reduce the overall cost of care and is cost-effective for the management of pressure sores and leg ulcers.5,6,7
Kerstein, et al. 2001 [+]
A cost study by Kerstein et al5 concluded that:
- Cost per venous ulcer healed over 12 weeks was lower for DuoDERM® than impregnated gauze dressings.
- DuoDERM® dressings were more cost-effective than competitor hydrocolloids and saline gauze in the treatment of pressure ulcers over a 12 week period
References [+]
- Cordts PR, Hanrahan LM, Rodriguez AA, Woodson J, LaMorte WW, Menzoian JO. A prospective, randomized trial of Unna’s boot versus Duoderm CGF hydroactive dressing plus compression in the management of venous leg ulcers.[see comment]. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 1992 Mar;15(3):480-6.
- Hansson C. The effects of cadexomer iodine paste in the treatment of venous leg ulcers compared with hydrocolloid dressing and paraffin gauze dressing. Cadexomer Iodine Study Group. International Journal of Dermatology. 1998 May;37(5):390-6.
- Day A, Dombranski B, Farkas C, et al. Managing sacral pressure ulcers with hydrocolloid dressings: Results of a controlled clinical study. Ostomy/Wound Management. 1995; 41: 52-65.
- Singh A, Halder S, Menon GR, et al. Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on hydrocolloid occlusive dressings versus conventional gauze dressing in the healing of chronic wounds. Asian Journal of Surgery. Vol 27, No . 4, October 2004.
- Kerstein M D, Gemmen E, Van Rijswijk L, Lyder CH, Phillips T, Xakellis G, Golden K, Harrington C. The cost and cost effectiveness of Venous and Pressure Ulcer Protocols of Care. Disease Management and Health Outcomes. 2001;9(11):651-663.
- Harding K, Cutting K, Price P. The cost-effectiveness of wound management protocols of care. Br J Nursing. 2000, (suppl) Vol 9, No. 19.
- Meaume S, Gemmen E. Cost effectiveness of wound management in France: pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers. Journal of Wound Care. Vol 11, No. 6, June 2002.
Notes [+]
- Tegasorb is a trademark of the 3M Company