Evaluating dressings

Chronic wounds, such as pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers, constitute an internationally recognised medical condition, affecting millions annually (Keogh, Nelson, Webster, Jolly, Ullman, & Chaboyer, 2013). Currently, healthcare systems are seeking out effective treatment options, such as hydrocolloid dressings, to promote healing of chronic wounds. The application of hydrocolloid dressing has been compared with other dressing types in recent literature to determine the most effective treatment for chronic wounds .Recent literature has indicated to an extent hydrocolloid dressing promotes wound area reduction however; its cost effectiveness remains unknown due to conflicting evidence. Therefore, this essay will discuss five relevant literatures to evaluate clinical effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressings in comparison to other treatments for chronic wounds. Parameters including wound healing effectiveness, dressing performance and cost effectiveness of five multicentre, randomised controlled and comparative studies will be analysed in reference to wound area reduction.
One literature review found hydrocolloid dressings act as an occlusive, moist environment to promote granulation tissue formation (Powers, Morton, & Phillips, 2013). Essentially, important for reducing wound area and wound healing by secondary intention (Powers, Morton, & Phillips, 2013). One comparative study proved hydrocolloid dressings to be more ideal in reducing wound area of diabetic foot ulcers (Saha, 2010). Saha (2010) revealed significant reduction of wound area of 33.1% in patients treated with hydrocolloid dressing; in comparison to wet saline dressing showing a 17.8% wound area reduction. However, the study was designed to assess hydrocolloid dressing in comparison to wet saline dressing effect on wound reduction over 2 weeks, insufficient to prove the long term efficacy of hydrocolloid dressing. Furthermore, the study recruited a small sample size of 34,