Advertisement

Wundheilung pp 118-125 | Cite as

Geliperm Treatment of Skin Graft Donor Sites and Other Wounds in Animals and Human Subjects

  • M. Spector

Abstract

It was over 20 years ago that investigators found that a moist environment enhances epithelialization of partial thickness excision wounds [1, 2]. Despite this finding, the moist treatment of wounds, such as skin graft donor sites, is still not widespread. Much of the difficulty is due to the fact that the occlusive [3–5] and semi-occlusive [6–9] films used to provide a moist environment result in undesirable fluid accumulation under the film. This condition may potentiate infection, as it generally leads to leakage of fluid from the wound site, contaminating surrounding areas. In addition, as the film is lifted from the surface of the skin by the accumulating fluid, bacteria can be given access to the wound site. New hydrogel materials [10–18] can provide a moist environment while absorbing some of the excess fluid exudate and, therefore, can be beneficial for the treatment of skin wounds.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Winter GD (1962) Formation of the scab and rate of epithelialization of superficial wounds in the skin of the young domestic pig. Nature 193: 293–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hinman CD, Maibach H (1963) Effect of air exposure and occlusion on experimental human skin wounds. London, Nature 200: 377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    James JH, Watson ACH (1975) The use of Opsite, a vapour permeable dressing, on skin graft donor sites. Br J Plastic Surg 28: 107–110Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tavis MJ, Thornton JW, Bartlett RH, Roth JC, Woodroof EA (1980) A new composite skin prosthesis. Burns 7 (2): 123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    May SR (1984) Physiology, immunology, and clinical efficacy of an adherent polyurethane wound dressing: Opsite. In: Wise DL (ed) Burn Wound Coverings, Volume II, CRC Press, Inc, pp 53–78Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexander JW, Wheeler LM, Rooney RC, McDonald JJ, MacMillan BG (1973) Clinical evaluation of epigard, an new synthetic substitute for homograft and heterograft skin. J. Trauma 13 (4): 374–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winter GD (1975) Epidermal wound healing under a new polyurethane foam dressing. Plast Reconstr Surg 56: 531–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dinner Peters CR, Sherer J (1979) Use of a semipermeable polyurethane membrane as a dressing for split-skin graft donor sites. Plast Reconstr Surg, 64 (1): 112–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norton L, Chvapil M (1981) Comparison of newer synthetic and biological wound dressings. J Trauma 21 (6): 463–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dressier DP, Barber WK, Sprenger R (1980) The effect of hydron burn wound dressing on burned rat and rabbit ear wound healing. J Trauma 20 (12): 1024–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warren RJ, Snelling CFT (1980) Clinical evaluation of the hydron burn dressing, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 66 (3): 361–368PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mandy SH (1983) A new primary wound dressing made of polyethylene oxide gel. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 9 (2): 153–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Migliaresi C (1984) A poly-2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate based laminate as potential burn wound covering. In: Wise DL (ed) Burn Wound Coverings, Volume II, CRC Press, Inc, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spector M, Weissgerber P, Reese N, Harmon SL (1982) A polyacrylamide-agar hydrogel material for the treatment of burns. Trans 8th Ann Mtg Soc for Biomatl, 5, p 68Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wokalek H, Schopf E, Vaubel E, Kiekhofen B, Fischer H (1979) First experiences with a transparent liquid gel in the treatment of fresh operations wounds and chronic epithelial defects of the skin. Aktuelle Dermatologie 5: 3–13Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knapp U, Rahn HD, Schauwecker F (1984) Clinical experience with a new gel-like wound dressing after skin graft. Modem Trauma 14 (6) 237–286Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiekhofen B, Wokalek H, Scheel D, Ruh H (1986) Chemical and physical properties of a hydrogel wound dressing. Biomaterials 7: 67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Geronemus RG, Robins P (1982) The effect of two new dressings on epidermal wound healing. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 8 (10): 850–852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parks GB (1978) Burn wound coverings — a review. Bromat Med Dev Art Org 6 (1): 1–35Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alvarez OM, Mertz PM, Eaglestein WH (1983) The effect of occlusive dressings on collagen synthesis and re-epithelization in superficial wounds. J Surg Res 35: 142–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alvarez OM, Hefton JM, Eaglestein WH (1984) Healing wounds: occlusion or exposure, Infections in Surgery, March, 173–181Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eaglestein WH, Mertz PM (1984) Dressings and wound healing. In: Hunt TK, Heppenstall RB, Pines E, Rovee D (eds) Soft and Hard Tissue Repair, Praeger Scientific Publisher, New York, pp 316–325Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Foxjun CL, Modals S, Stanford JW, Bradshaw W (1980) Silver Sulphadiazine — poly hydigy- ethylmethacrylate (PHEMA) dressing. Burns 7 (4): 295–297Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mertz PM, Marshall DA, Kriglar MA (1986) Povidone-iodine in polyethylene oxide hydrogel dressing. Arch Dermatol 122: 1133–1138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Spector

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations