These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of a lipidocolloid wound dressing in the local management of leg ulcers.
    Author: Meaume S, Ourabah Z, Cartier H, Granel-Brocard F, Combemale P, Bressieux JM, Bohbot S.
    Journal: J Wound Care; 2005 Jul; 14(7):329-34. PubMed ID: 16048220.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerance and acceptability of Urgotul and DuoDERM E dressings in the local management of venous or mixed-aetiology leg ulcers. METHOD: This was a prospective multicentre randomised phase IV clinical trial conducted open-label in parallel groups. It involved 20 investigating centres, including hospital dermatology and vascular medicine departments, and private practices. Dermatologists and angiologists/phlebologists took part. Subjects were adult, non-immunosuppressed patients presenting with a non-infected, non-malignant leg ulcer of predominantly venous origin (ABPI > 0.8). Ulcers were between 4cm2 and 40cm2 in size, with granulation tissue covering more than 50% of their surface area. Ulcer duration ranged from three to 18 months. Patients were followed-up by the investigating physician for eight weeks on a weekly basis; this included clinical examination, wound area tracings and photographs. Nurses (hospital or visiting) assessed exudate volume and clinical appearance at dressing changes. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included: 47 in the Urgotul group and 44 in the DuoDERM E group. Baseline patient demographic data and wound characteristics were comparable in the two groups. After eight weeks of treatment wound surface area had reduced by a mean of 61.3% in the Urgotul group and 52.1% in the DuoDERM E group (NS); dressings were changed more frequently in the DuoDERM E group (2.54 +/- 0.57 times per week versus 2.31 +/- 0.45 in the Urgotul group, p = 0.047). Thirty-three local adverse events were recorded in 27 patients: 10 in the Urgotul group and 23 in the DuoDERM E group (p = 0.039). Nurses reported better acceptability for the Urgotul dressing, based on pain on removal, maceration and odour (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Both dressings showed similar efficacy for the local treatment of venous leg ulcers. Nevertheless, medical and nursing staff reported better tolerance and acceptability for the Urgotul dressing.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]