Background Transparent dressings are commonly used to cover central venous catheter sites. However, it has been suggested that they might not allow adequate moisture vapor transmission, resulting in local moistness th...Background Transparent dressings are commonly used to cover central venous catheter sites. However, it has been suggested that they might not allow adequate moisture vapor transmission, resulting in local moistness that promotes bacterial growth. We compared the moisture vapor transmission rates （MVTRs） of different, currently used transparent and traditional gauze dressings. We aimed to determine the MVTRs at different temperatures and humidities. Methods The dressings were used to seal 50-ml plastic centrifuge tubes containing 20 ml deionized water： Tubes in group 1 were covered with 12 layers of ordinary gauze, group 2 with IV3000, group 3 with OPSITE FLEXlGRID, group 4 with 3M HP Tegaderm, and group 5 with 3M Tegaderm. The tubes were placed upright in an artificial climate cabinet, so that the dressings were not touching the water, in order to simulate the conditions of medical dressings in contact with the skin. The average MVTRs were determined under different conditions. MVTRs were also determined with tubes from groups 2-5 laid on their sides, allowing the dressings to touch the water, so simulating contact of the dressings with sweating skin, or wounded skin with exudates. We also calculated the dressings＇ self-reactive abilities by comparing their MVTRs in contact with the water surface with those when not in contact with the water surface. Results Group 1 demonstrated the highest MVTR, followed by groups 2, 4, 3 and 5 under conditions simulating contact of the dressings with normal skin at the following temperatures and humidities： 20℃/30%, 20℃/60%, 20℃/90%, 37℃/30%, 37℃/60% and 37℃/90%. When the relative humidity （RH） increased, the MVTRs decreased. The MVTRs differed significantly among different dressings and RHs： At high temperature （37℃） and high humidity （90%）, the MVTR of the transparent dressings in group 2 was higher than that of group 1 （P 〈0.01）. The reactive MVTR was highest in group 2 （10.2-16.3 times 〉MVTR） while that of group 4 was second展开更多
文摘Background Transparent dressings are commonly used to cover central venous catheter sites. However, it has been suggested that they might not allow adequate moisture vapor transmission, resulting in local moistness that promotes bacterial growth. We compared the moisture vapor transmission rates （MVTRs） of different, currently used transparent and traditional gauze dressings. We aimed to determine the MVTRs at different temperatures and humidities. Methods The dressings were used to seal 50-ml plastic centrifuge tubes containing 20 ml deionized water： Tubes in group 1 were covered with 12 layers of ordinary gauze, group 2 with IV3000, group 3 with OPSITE FLEXlGRID, group 4 with 3M HP Tegaderm, and group 5 with 3M Tegaderm. The tubes were placed upright in an artificial climate cabinet, so that the dressings were not touching the water, in order to simulate the conditions of medical dressings in contact with the skin. The average MVTRs were determined under different conditions. MVTRs were also determined with tubes from groups 2-5 laid on their sides, allowing the dressings to touch the water, so simulating contact of the dressings with sweating skin, or wounded skin with exudates. We also calculated the dressings＇ self-reactive abilities by comparing their MVTRs in contact with the water surface with those when not in contact with the water surface. Results Group 1 demonstrated the highest MVTR, followed by groups 2, 4, 3 and 5 under conditions simulating contact of the dressings with normal skin at the following temperatures and humidities： 20℃/30%, 20℃/60%, 20℃/90%, 37℃/30%, 37℃/60% and 37℃/90%. When the relative humidity （RH） increased, the MVTRs decreased. The MVTRs differed significantly among different dressings and RHs： At high temperature （37℃） and high humidity （90%）, the MVTR of the transparent dressings in group 2 was higher than that of group 1 （P 〈0.01）. The reactive MVTR was highest in group 2 （10.2-16.3 times 〉MVTR） while that of group 4 was second
