• Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

A controlled model of moist wound healing: comparison between semi-permeable film, antiseptics and sugar paste.

Read this article at

      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


      An established wound model in the pig has been modified using a Stomahesive ring to enable study of the effects of fluids used in wound care. Full thickness wounds (up to 9 mm deep) were treated with the substances under test. Each application was held in place with a Stomahesive flange, the inner part of which had been excised as far as the hard plastic ring. All dressings were then covered with OpSite which allowed gaseous exchange whilst retaining treatment fluids and secretions. Wounds were treated immediately and at 2 and 4 days. The experiment was terminated after 7 days and the whole wound, with dressing, was excised for histological examination. The wounds covered with OpSite alone and those treated with sugar paste under Opsite were found to be infilled with granulation tissue over which epidermal migration was taking place. Those wounds which had been packed with gauze, to which had been added one of the following: chlorhexidine gluconate 0.2%, Irgasan 0.2%, povidone iodine 0.8% or EUSOL half-strength, showed delayed healing in that less infilling had taken place over the same time period. This delay could be attributed to the nature of the chemicals used and/or the influence of gauze packing. This delay in the healing of wounds treated with chemical agents was least with EUSOL half-strength and greatest with chlorhexidine. No toxic effects were observed with sugar paste which may be preferable to antiseptics for the management of dirty or infected wounds.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      [1 ] Department of Pharmacy, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, UK.
      J Exp Pathol (Oxford)
      Journal of experimental pathology (Oxford, England)
      Apr 1990
      : 71
      : 2
      2331404 1998714


      Comment on this article