Instrumental Evaluation of the Protective Effects of a Barrier Film on Surrounding Skin in Chronic Wounds

Author(s): 
Valentina Dini, MD; Francesca Salibra, MD; Cinzia Brilli, RN; Marco Romanelli, MD, PhD

Variability in the water permeability values for periulcer tissue, together with histological images, confirmed that the presence of an impaired skin barrier in such tissue is likely the result of the effects of wound exudate on the tissue. When the skin barrier is damaged, the passive diffusion of water from the deeper skin layers to outside TEWL increases; even subtle changes in barrier integrity can be detected by measuring TEWL. This noninvasive technique is applicable in vivo and offers the possibility to quantify periulcer skin responses after the application of protective products.7 It should therefore be possible to administer agents to the wound periphery, which would permit a more efficient water delivery through the skin.

     It is particularly important to protect the surrounding skin from maceration caused by exudate, because this reddens the wound edges and makes it difficult to attach the dressing material. Progress in the management of wound edges has generally been unsatisfactory and in many cases the products used have not been developed with the aim of skin protection. The lack of supporting clinical evidence creates difficulties for caregivers in prescribing the most effective treatment.

     Shuren et al8 published a review, which demonstrated that there is no statistically significant difference between the protective properties of different periwound skin barriers. Coutts et al9 observed that zinc oxide and petrolatum are effective, but can interfere with the dressing’s absorption and adhesion. Several reports have confirmed that zinc oxide and petrolatum are difficult to remove.10 Most studies conclude that more research is needed to determine the objective efficacy of the products used to protect surrounding skin. In the literature, only 1 intra-individual, double-blind, randomized trial objectively demonstrated the efficacy of a film barrier on perilesional skin using a chromometer to measure erythema, which could detect color changes not visible to the naked eye.11 The erythema completely disappeared after 3 days in 88.1% of the patients and after 4 days in all patients when treated with NSBF.

     In the present study, the skin barrier was monitored by measuring TEWL during treatment with 2 types of skin protective agents in order to achieve an objective efficacy evaluation of the skin barrier product.

Conclusion

     The results of this study showed that TEWL measurements are the most important biophysical parameters for evaluating the efficiency of the human skin water barrier and that the NSBF and zinc oxide ointment helped improve the surrounding skin barrier. As an additional benefit, the NSBF was easy to apply—therefore reducing patient discomfort and suffering.

References: 


1. Cutting KF, White RJ. Maceration of the skin and wound bed. 1: Its nature and causes. J Wound Care. 2002;11(7): 275–278.
2. Okan D, Woo K, Ayello EA, Sibbald G. The role of moisture balance in wound healing. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007; 20(1):39–53.
3. Rogiers V. EEMCO guidance for the assessment of transepidermal water loss in cosmetic sciences. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2001;14(2):117–128.
4. De Paepe K, Houben E, Adam R, Wiesemann F, Rogiers V. Validation of the VapoMeter, a closed unventilated chamber system to assess transepidermal water loss vs. the open chamber Tewameter. Skin Res Technol. 2005;11(1):61–69.
5. Kannon GA, Garrett AB. Moist wound healing with occlusive dressings. A clinical review. Dermatol Surg. 1995;21(7):583–590.
6. Walker M, Hadgraft J, Lane ME. Investigation of the permeability characteristics of peri-ulcer and whole ischaemic skin tissue. Int J Pharm. 2008;357(1-2):1–5.
7. Kompaore F, Dupont C, Marty JP. In vivo evaluation in man by two noninvasive methods of the stratum corneum barrier function after physical and chemical modifications. Int J Cosmet Sci. 1991;13(6):293–302.
8. Schuren J, Becker A, Sibbald RG. A liquid film-forming acrylate for peri-wound protection: a systematic review and meta-analysis (3M Cavilon no-sting barrier film). Int Wound J. 2005;2(3):230–238.
9. Coutts P, Sibbald GR, Queen D. Peri-wound skin protection: a comparison of a new skin barrier vs. traditional therapy in wound management. Poster presented at: CAWC Conference; 2001; London ON, Canada.
10. Cameron J, Hoffman D, Wilson J, Cherry G. Comparison of two peri-wound skin protectants in venous leg ulcers: a randomised controlled trial. J Wound Care. 2005;14(5):233–236.
11. Neander KD, Hesse F. The protective effects of a new preparation on wound edges. J Wound Care. 2003;12(10):369–371.



Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Use to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.