Objective: Over the course of a wound's healing trajectory, whether the wound is acute or hard-to-heal, management is likely to involve the use of several different dressing types. Minimising the complexity of treatment (in terms of dressing usage) would aid clinicians in providing effective wound care but excellent clinical outcomes must remain the primary goal.
Method: This study was an open-labelled, non-comparative study assessing the clinical effectiveness of a coordinated wound dressing treatment regimen. After an initial phase of using a hydro-responsive wound dressing (HydroClean, HRWD-1, PAUL HARTMANN AG, Germany) to cleanse and debride hard-to-heal wounds, the wounds were subsequently treated with either HydroTac (HRWD-2, PAUL HARTMANN AG, Germany) (to maintain healing progression and re-epithelialisation) or RespoSorb (a superabsorbent dressing, PAUL HARTMANN AG, Germany) (to manage moderate-to-high levels of exudate). The Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) assessment tool was used to measure the wound status over the course of the treatment period and to assess several wound status parameters (for example, wound area, exudate levels and wound characteristics such as level of re-epithelialisation).
Results: The results from this study demonstrated that wounds treated with HRWD-2 showed a positive healing response when using the PUSH score assessment tool with a significant mean reduction (p<0.0001) in the PUSH score of wounds treated with HRWD-2, with >75% of wounds being closed by the end of the study. This result underlines the effectiveness of HRWD-2 in supporting healing progression.
Conclusion: The results from this study support the coordinated use of HRWDs for the effective management and treatment of a variety of hard-to-heal wounds.
Keywords: HydroClean; HydroTac; PUSH score; TIME; acute; chronic; debridement; epithelialisation; hard-to-heal; hydro-responsive; superabsorbent; wound; wound bed preparation; wound care; wound dressing; wound healing.