Hydrocolloid vs Gauze Dressings in Treating Pressure Ulcers
Hydrocolloid vs Gauze Dressings in Treating Pressure Ulcers
This meta-analysis found hydrocolloid dressings were more effective than gauze dressings for pressure ulcer treatment in the complete wound healing rate, with the OR 3.642 (95% CI 1.104 to 12.012). In the outcome of wound volume or surface area reduction, 2 included studies confirmed the hydrocolloid dressing was more effective than gauze dressings. Data of wound reduction wasn't pooled because of different data type. Several characteristics of hydrocolloids are related to the treatment effectiveness. Hydrocolloid dressings that promote a moist wound environment produced better results than those that promote a dry wound environment, with an earlier onset of healing and better healing outcomes. Hydrocolloid dressings also promote granulation tissue and prevent infection in wounds, which is very important for pressure ulcer healing.
Aside from pressure ulcer healing, some other advantages of hydrocolloid dressings were also found. Compared with gauze dressings, hydrocolloids were more effective with regard to the time to heal, the ease of handling of the dressing, the time needed for dressing changes, the dressing's absorption capacity, and the pain during dressing changes. Hydrocolloid dressings also proved to be the most cost-effective. The cost of hydrocolloids was lower if the costs of materials and the cost of staff were taken into account and calculated on the basis of the length of time between, and the frequency of, dressing changes.
There are 2 notable limitations in this meta-analysis. First, the qualities of the included studies are relatively poor; the Jadad Scale of all included studies scored 2. Second, the significant heterogeneity and the possible publication bias were found in the meta-analysis. These 2 limitations may lead to bias and need to be considered when evaluating the conclusion.
Discussion
This meta-analysis found hydrocolloid dressings were more effective than gauze dressings for pressure ulcer treatment in the complete wound healing rate, with the OR 3.642 (95% CI 1.104 to 12.012). In the outcome of wound volume or surface area reduction, 2 included studies confirmed the hydrocolloid dressing was more effective than gauze dressings. Data of wound reduction wasn't pooled because of different data type. Several characteristics of hydrocolloids are related to the treatment effectiveness. Hydrocolloid dressings that promote a moist wound environment produced better results than those that promote a dry wound environment, with an earlier onset of healing and better healing outcomes. Hydrocolloid dressings also promote granulation tissue and prevent infection in wounds, which is very important for pressure ulcer healing.
Aside from pressure ulcer healing, some other advantages of hydrocolloid dressings were also found. Compared with gauze dressings, hydrocolloids were more effective with regard to the time to heal, the ease of handling of the dressing, the time needed for dressing changes, the dressing's absorption capacity, and the pain during dressing changes. Hydrocolloid dressings also proved to be the most cost-effective. The cost of hydrocolloids was lower if the costs of materials and the cost of staff were taken into account and calculated on the basis of the length of time between, and the frequency of, dressing changes.
There are 2 notable limitations in this meta-analysis. First, the qualities of the included studies are relatively poor; the Jadad Scale of all included studies scored 2. Second, the significant heterogeneity and the possible publication bias were found in the meta-analysis. These 2 limitations may lead to bias and need to be considered when evaluating the conclusion.
Source...