Cargando…

Reducing Friction on Skin at Risk: The Use of 3M(™) Cavilon(™) No Sting Barrier Film

Objective: To compare the coefficient of friction (CoF) of skin against fabric when the skin is covered with a liquid barrier film versus a silicone dressing, relative to a bare skin baseline. Approach: A laboratory instrument allowing the measurement of friction between two surfaces was used to com...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bernatchez, Stéphanie F., Mengistu, Golie E., Ekholm, Bruce P., Sanghi, Shilpi, Theiss, Steven D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26634182
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0628
_version_ 1782401599201607680
author Bernatchez, Stéphanie F.
Mengistu, Golie E.
Ekholm, Bruce P.
Sanghi, Shilpi
Theiss, Steven D.
author_facet Bernatchez, Stéphanie F.
Mengistu, Golie E.
Ekholm, Bruce P.
Sanghi, Shilpi
Theiss, Steven D.
author_sort Bernatchez, Stéphanie F.
collection PubMed
description Objective: To compare the coefficient of friction (CoF) of skin against fabric when the skin is covered with a liquid barrier film versus a silicone dressing, relative to a bare skin baseline. Approach: A laboratory instrument allowing the measurement of friction between two surfaces was used to compare the CoF between a fabric representing bed linen (100% cotton) and the skin of two laboratory operators, either bare (dry or hydrated) or covered with a liquid barrier film or a silicone dressing. Results: The CoF of hydrated skin was over twice the value found for dry skin. The liquid barrier film product reduced the CoF of hydrated skin to a greater extent than the silicone dressing. Innovation and Conclusion: Silicone dressings have recently been promoted to help prevent pressure ulcers. Published data have shown that their CoF is lower than other dressings, but the data were not compared to bare skin. We found that a liquid barrier film provided a greater reduction in the CoF of skin against linen than a silicone dressing. In the context of preventative use (e.g., application on intact skin) to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers, applying a liquid barrier film may reduce friction better than a silicone dressing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4651030
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46510302015-12-02 Reducing Friction on Skin at Risk: The Use of 3M(™) Cavilon(™) No Sting Barrier Film Bernatchez, Stéphanie F. Mengistu, Golie E. Ekholm, Bruce P. Sanghi, Shilpi Theiss, Steven D. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) Discovery Express Objective: To compare the coefficient of friction (CoF) of skin against fabric when the skin is covered with a liquid barrier film versus a silicone dressing, relative to a bare skin baseline. Approach: A laboratory instrument allowing the measurement of friction between two surfaces was used to compare the CoF between a fabric representing bed linen (100% cotton) and the skin of two laboratory operators, either bare (dry or hydrated) or covered with a liquid barrier film or a silicone dressing. Results: The CoF of hydrated skin was over twice the value found for dry skin. The liquid barrier film product reduced the CoF of hydrated skin to a greater extent than the silicone dressing. Innovation and Conclusion: Silicone dressings have recently been promoted to help prevent pressure ulcers. Published data have shown that their CoF is lower than other dressings, but the data were not compared to bare skin. We found that a liquid barrier film provided a greater reduction in the CoF of skin against linen than a silicone dressing. In the context of preventative use (e.g., application on intact skin) to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers, applying a liquid barrier film may reduce friction better than a silicone dressing. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2015-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4651030/ /pubmed/26634182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0628 Text en © Stéphanie F. Bernatchez, et al. 2015; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Discovery Express
Bernatchez, Stéphanie F.
Mengistu, Golie E.
Ekholm, Bruce P.
Sanghi, Shilpi
Theiss, Steven D.
Reducing Friction on Skin at Risk: The Use of 3M(™) Cavilon(™) No Sting Barrier Film
title Reducing Friction on Skin at Risk: The Use of 3M(™) Cavilon(™) No Sting Barrier Film
title_full Reducing Friction on Skin at Risk: The Use of 3M(™) Cavilon(™) No Sting Barrier Film
title_fullStr Reducing Friction on Skin at Risk: The Use of 3M(™) Cavilon(™) No Sting Barrier Film
title_full_unstemmed Reducing Friction on Skin at Risk: The Use of 3M(™) Cavilon(™) No Sting Barrier Film
title_short Reducing Friction on Skin at Risk: The Use of 3M(™) Cavilon(™) No Sting Barrier Film
title_sort reducing friction on skin at risk: the use of 3m(™) cavilon(™) no sting barrier film
topic Discovery Express
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26634182
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0628
work_keys_str_mv AT bernatchezstephanief reducingfrictiononskinatrisktheuseof3mcavilonnostingbarrierfilm
AT mengistugoliee reducingfrictiononskinatrisktheuseof3mcavilonnostingbarrierfilm
AT ekholmbrucep reducingfrictiononskinatrisktheuseof3mcavilonnostingbarrierfilm
AT sanghishilpi reducingfrictiononskinatrisktheuseof3mcavilonnostingbarrierfilm
AT theissstevend reducingfrictiononskinatrisktheuseof3mcavilonnostingbarrierfilm