II. Category

  1. Dehydrating Dressing derived from seaweed
  2. Comprised of soft fibers in the shape of pads or ropes

III. Characteristics

  1. Absorptive
  2. Nonocclusive
  3. Nonadhesive
  4. Moisture-retentive

IV. Indication

  1. Moderate to heavily exudative and wounds
    1. Wounds with undermining or tunneling
    2. Type 2 to 4 Pressure Sores
  2. Autolytic Debridement

V. Contraindications

  1. Avoid in non-exudative, dry wounds
  2. Avoid in sinus tracts

VI. Technique

  1. Rinse wound residue with each bandage change
  2. Change dressing daily to every 3 days

VII. Advantages

  1. Requires less care than other dressings
  2. Designed to be occlusive
  3. Designed to absorb large exudates (up to 20 times its own weight)
  4. Fills dead space
  5. Conforms to wound shape

VIII. Efficacy

IX. Disadvantages

  1. No trial data on effectiveness in Pressure Sores
  2. Avoided in light exudate or dry wounds
  3. Risk of dehydrating wound bed and delaying Wound Healing (risk of scab formation)

X. References

  1. Habif (1996) Clinical Derm, Mosby, p. 810-13
  2. Krasner (1995) Prevention Management Pressure Ulcers
  3. Lewis (1996) Med-Surg Nursing, Mosby, p. 199-200
  4. Lueckenotte (1996) Gerontologic Nurs., Mosby, p. 800-7
  5. PUGP (1994) Pressure Ulcer Treatment, AHCPR 95-0653
  6. Way (1991) Current Surgical, Lange, p.95-108
  7. Bello (2000) JAMA 283(6): 716-8 [PubMed]
  8. Degreef (1998) Dermatol Clin 16(2): 365-75 [PubMed]
  9. Findlay (1996) Am Fam Physician 54(5): 1519-28 [PubMed]
  10. Knapp (1999) Pediatr Clin North Am 46(6):1201-13 [PubMed]
  11. (1995) Am Fam Physician 51(5):1207-22 [PubMed]

Images: Related links to external sites (from Bing)

Related Studies