Differences in prophylactic performance across wound dressing types used to protect from device‐related pressure ulcers caused by a continuous positive airway pressure mask

Prolonged use of continuous positive airway pressure masks, as often required for non‐invasive ventilation, involves a risk for facial tissue breakdown due to the sustained deformations caused by tightening of the stiff mask surfaces to the head and the moist environment. The risk of developing mask‐related facial injuries can be reduced through suitable cushioning materials placed at the skin‐mask interfaces to spread the localised contact forces and disperse the surface and internal tissue stresses. Using an integrated experimental‐computational approach, we compared the biomechanical protective performance of three popular foam‐based wound dressings to that of a market‐lead hydrocolloid dressing when applied to protect the facial skin under a mask. We measured the compressive stiffness properties of the four commercial dressing types in dry and moist conditions, and then fed those to an anatomically realistic finite element model of an adult male head, with an applied simulated mask. Through this process, we calculated the protective efficacy index of each dressing type, indicating the relative contribution of the specified dressing to alleviating facial soft tissue loads with respect to the no‐dressing case. The foam‐based dressings generally performed substantially better than the hydrocolloid, but foam dressings were also demonstrated to vary by their protective performance.