在健康参与者中进行的 CATHEREEPLUS 垫和 Tegaderm 垫薄膜敷料皮肤粘附性随机比较研究。

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Cureus Pub Date : 2024-10-29 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.7759/cureus.72600
Shiori Sakurai, Yuji Kawamura, Eri Nohmi, Takemasa Kokubo, Takashi Koikeda
{"title":"在健康参与者中进行的 CATHEREEPLUS 垫和 Tegaderm 垫薄膜敷料皮肤粘附性随机比较研究。","authors":"Shiori Sakurai, Yuji Kawamura, Eri Nohmi, Takemasa Kokubo, Takashi Koikeda","doi":"10.7759/cureus.72600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective This study aimed to compare the adhesion of CATHEREEPLUS<sub>TM</sub> Pad (CPSP; NICHIBAN Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and Tegaderm<sup>TM</sup> +Pad (TGMP; 3M, Maplewood, MN, USA) film dressings on the forearm skin of healthy participants over a four-day application period. Methods Twenty-six randomly assigned participants received CPSP dressing on one arm and TGMP on the other. The primary endpoint was adhesion to the skin after four days of dermal application. Secondary endpoints were adhesion and itchiness during the application period, pain experienced during dressing removal, skin maceration, adhesive residue immediately post-dressing removal, and skin reactions at one and 24 hours post-dressing removal. All endpoints were evaluated using a five- or six-point scoring system. Results Following four days of dressing application, 77% of participants in the CPSP group and 73% of those in the TGMP group scored 4 (most) or 5 (complete) for adhesion. No clinically significant problems such as itchiness, pain, skin maceration, adhesive residue, or skin reactions were observed in either group. No statistically significant differences in any of the endpoints were observed between the two groups. Conclusion Both CPSP and TGMP dressings showed good adhesion to the skin during four days of dermal application in healthy participants, with no significant difference in adhesion observed between the two groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":93960,"journal":{"name":"Cureus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11522380/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomized, Comparative Study of Skin Adhesion Between CATHEREEPLUS Pad and Tegaderm Pad Film Dressings in Healthy Participants.\",\"authors\":\"Shiori Sakurai, Yuji Kawamura, Eri Nohmi, Takemasa Kokubo, Takashi Koikeda\",\"doi\":\"10.7759/cureus.72600\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objective This study aimed to compare the adhesion of CATHEREEPLUS<sub>TM</sub> Pad (CPSP; NICHIBAN Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and Tegaderm<sup>TM</sup> +Pad (TGMP; 3M, Maplewood, MN, USA) film dressings on the forearm skin of healthy participants over a four-day application period. Methods Twenty-six randomly assigned participants received CPSP dressing on one arm and TGMP on the other. The primary endpoint was adhesion to the skin after four days of dermal application. Secondary endpoints were adhesion and itchiness during the application period, pain experienced during dressing removal, skin maceration, adhesive residue immediately post-dressing removal, and skin reactions at one and 24 hours post-dressing removal. All endpoints were evaluated using a five- or six-point scoring system. Results Following four days of dressing application, 77% of participants in the CPSP group and 73% of those in the TGMP group scored 4 (most) or 5 (complete) for adhesion. No clinically significant problems such as itchiness, pain, skin maceration, adhesive residue, or skin reactions were observed in either group. No statistically significant differences in any of the endpoints were observed between the two groups. Conclusion Both CPSP and TGMP dressings showed good adhesion to the skin during four days of dermal application in healthy participants, with no significant difference in adhesion observed between the two groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93960,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cureus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11522380/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cureus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.72600\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cureus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.72600","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本研究旨在比较 CATHEREEPLUSTM Pad(CPSP;NICHIBAN Co.,Ltd.,Tokyo,Japan)和 TegadermTM +Pad (TGMP;3M,Maplewood,MN,USA)薄膜敷料在四天使用期内对健康参与者前臂皮肤的粘附性。方法 26 名随机分配的参与者一只手臂接受 CPSP 敷料,另一只手臂接受 TGMP 敷料。主要终点是皮肤敷贴四天后的皮肤粘附性。次要终点是敷贴期间的粘连和瘙痒、去除敷料时的疼痛、皮肤浸渍、去除敷料后的粘胶残留以及去除敷料后 1 小时和 24 小时的皮肤反应。所有终点均采用五点或六点评分法进行评估。结果 在使用敷料四天后,77% 的 CPSP 组参与者和 73% 的 TGMP 组参与者在粘附性方面获得了 4 分(大部分)或 5 分(完全)。两组均未发现瘙痒、疼痛、皮肤浸渍、粘合剂残留或皮肤反应等明显的临床问题。两组在任何终点上都没有发现明显的统计学差异。结论 CPSP 和 TGMP 敷料在健康参与者皮肤上使用四天后都显示出良好的皮肤粘附性,两组之间的粘附性没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Randomized, Comparative Study of Skin Adhesion Between CATHEREEPLUS Pad and Tegaderm Pad Film Dressings in Healthy Participants.

Objective This study aimed to compare the adhesion of CATHEREEPLUSTM Pad (CPSP; NICHIBAN Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and TegadermTM +Pad (TGMP; 3M, Maplewood, MN, USA) film dressings on the forearm skin of healthy participants over a four-day application period. Methods Twenty-six randomly assigned participants received CPSP dressing on one arm and TGMP on the other. The primary endpoint was adhesion to the skin after four days of dermal application. Secondary endpoints were adhesion and itchiness during the application period, pain experienced during dressing removal, skin maceration, adhesive residue immediately post-dressing removal, and skin reactions at one and 24 hours post-dressing removal. All endpoints were evaluated using a five- or six-point scoring system. Results Following four days of dressing application, 77% of participants in the CPSP group and 73% of those in the TGMP group scored 4 (most) or 5 (complete) for adhesion. No clinically significant problems such as itchiness, pain, skin maceration, adhesive residue, or skin reactions were observed in either group. No statistically significant differences in any of the endpoints were observed between the two groups. Conclusion Both CPSP and TGMP dressings showed good adhesion to the skin during four days of dermal application in healthy participants, with no significant difference in adhesion observed between the two groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pneumonia in Transplant Recipients: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnosis and Management. Pseudo-Synchronous Colorectal Cancer: A Case Report. Role of Laboratory Tests in Enhancing Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for Dentists: A Review of Evidence-Based Practices. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Job Satisfaction of Cardiothoracic Trainees in the United Kingdom: An Insight From the General Medical Council National Training Survey. Awareness and Knowledge of Hepatitis B Vaccination Among Newly Enrolled First-Year Medical Undergraduates in South India: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1