生物敷料A对比银离子水胶体油纱修复面部Ⅱ度烧伤

背景：在临床治疗面部Ⅱ度烧伤中,生物敷料A及银离子水胶体油纱在吸收渗液、黏附性、抗菌等方面都具有不错的表现。 目的：观察面部Ⅱ度烧伤早期清创后生物敷料A对比银离子水胶体油纱覆盖的临床疗效。 方法：纳入15例浅Ⅱ度及10例深Ⅱ度面部烧伤患者,将同一患者相同烧伤深度及同等大小的对称创面分两侧治疗,实验侧清创后采用生物敷料A覆盖创面,对照侧清创后采用银离子水胶体油纱覆盖创面,对比两侧创面愈合时间、创面感染情况、换药次数、创面愈合后皮肤质量情况、换药舒适度及敷料覆盖舒适度。 结果与结论：在浅Ⅱ度烧伤患者中,实验侧换药次数及敷料覆盖舒适度优于对照侧(P < 0.05),换药舒适度差于对照侧(P < 0.05),两侧创面愈合时间、创面感染及愈合后皮肤质量情况无差异。在深Ⅱ度烧伤患者中,实验侧创面愈合时间、换药次数、愈合后皮肤质量情况、换药舒适度及敷料覆盖舒适度优于对照侧(P < 0.05),换药舒适度差于对照侧(P < 0.05),两侧创面感染情况无差异。表明生物敷料A与银离子水胶体油纱修复面部浅Ⅱ度烧伤创面的疗效相似,但生物敷料A修复深Ⅱ度烧伤创面更有利于促进创面愈合,提高创面愈合质量。中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：生物材料;骨生物材料; 口腔生物材料; 纳米材料; 缓释材料; 材料相容性;组织工程全文链接：     

亲水性纤维含银敷料覆盖肛瘘术后创面的作用

背景：亲水性纤维含银敷料在其他创面治疗中目前已取得较多临床证据,但其 对肛瘘患者术后创面康复的作用研究较少。 目的：观察亲水性纤维含银敷料覆盖对肛瘘患者术后创面康复的作用。 方法：将57例肛瘘术后患者随机分为试验组29例和对照组28例,试验组在术后给予亲水性纤维含银敷料换药,3 d 1次,对照组术后给予无菌凡士林纱布换药,1次/d,观察两组患者的首次换药创面疼痛程度、渗液明显减少时间、换药次数、创面康复时间及换药费用等指标。 结果与结论：试验组首次换药时创面疼痛程度明显轻于对照组(P < 0.05),渗液明显减少时间、换药次数、创面康复时间明显少于对照组(P < 0.05);但试验组换药费用明显高于对照组(P < 0.05)。表明亲水性纤维含银敷料覆盖于肛瘘患者术后创面可减少刺激,明显减轻疼痛,提供湿性修复环境,加速创面愈合,减少换药次数,提高患者满意度。     

三种创面敷料在薄中厚皮片供皮区的应用研究

目的观察3种创面敷料对薄中厚皮片供皮区创面愈合的影响。 方法选取蚌埠医学院第一附属医院整形烧伤科2020年1月至12月收治的38例自体皮片移植术患者。在同一患者供皮区分别取相同面积的类矩形薄中厚皮片3处,每处均间隔1 cm,每例所取皮片总面积基本相同,将同一患者的3处供皮区分为凡士林敷料组、银离子藻酸盐敷料组和丝素蛋白膜状敷料组3组,取皮后分别贴敷凡士林敷料、银离子藻酸盐敷料和丝素蛋白膜状敷料。对比3组供皮区创面积血率、初次换药时患者的疼痛程度[数字评定量表(NRS)]、创面感染率、创面上皮化愈合时间、创面后期愈合效果。对数据行单因素方差分析、t检验和χ²检验。 结果(1)创面积血率：丝素蛋白膜状敷料组创面积血率(23.68%)分别高于分别高于凡士林敷料组(2.63%)和银离子藻酸盐敷料组(5.26%),差异均有统计学意义(χ²＝ 7.370、5.208, P<0.05),凡士林敷料组与银离子藻酸盐敷料组积血率比较,差异无统计学意义(χ²＝0.347, P>0.05);(2)初次换药时疼痛程度评价：丝素蛋白膜状敷料组的NRS评分为(2.97±1.48)分,分别低于银离子藻酸盐敷料组[(3.97±1.84)分]和凡士林敷料组[(6.03±1.37)分],差异均有统计学意义(t＝ 4.854、0.873, P<0.05);银离子藻酸盐敷料组疼痛评分低于凡士林敷料组,差异有统计学意义(t＝1.467, P<0.05);(3)创面感染率：银离子藻酸盐敷料组创面感染率(5.26%)分别与丝素蛋白膜状敷料组(0)和凡士林敷料组(10.53%)比较,差异均无统计学意义(χ²＝ 2.054、0.724, P>0.05);丝素蛋白膜状敷料组与凡士林敷料组比较,感染率低,差异有统计学意义(χ²＝ 4.222, P<0.05);(4)创面上皮化愈合时间：丝素蛋白膜状敷料组创面上皮化愈合时间为(8.95±1.34) d,与银离子藻酸盐敷料组[(13.69±1.64) d]以及凡士林敷料组[(11.78±1.43) d]比较,愈合时间均较短,差异均有统计学意义(t＝0.953、1.204, P<0.05)。与银离子藻酸盐敷料组比较,凡士林敷料组愈合时间短,差异有统计学意义(t＝2.147, P<0.05);(5)创面后期愈合效果：3组在瘢痕增生和色素沉着2方面均无明显差异。 结论丝素蛋白膜状敷料应用于薄中厚皮片供皮区,具有相对无痛、抗感染能力强、上皮化愈合时间短等优势,但在防止创面积血方面效果欠佳。     

联合应用藻酸盐和聚亚安酯敷料促进中厚皮供区创面愈合的临床观察

目的探讨联合应用藻酸盐和自粘型聚亚安酯敷料于中厚皮片供皮区,加速创面愈合的方法。方法烧伤后瘢痕整形中厚皮取皮术后,实验组19例以藻酸盐和自粘型聚亚安酯敷料顺序联合应用覆盖供皮区创面,对照组17例以传统的凡士林纱布加棉垫绷带加压包扎供皮区创面,受术者于术后第1天、第2天及第10天揭除敷料时就供皮区疼痛程度按疼痛视觉模拟评分,并对敷料对术后活动的影响、术后10d揭除敷料难易程度进行评价,记录两组供皮区创面愈合的时间。结果术后第1天、第2天及术后第10天揭除敷料时,实验组受术者的疼痛视觉模拟评分低于对照组,实验组中36.8%受术者术后活动不受限,高于对照组（P〈0.05）;术后10d,实验组揭除敷料更为容易,且实验组供皮区愈合时间平均为9.8d,短于对照组（P〈0.01）。结论藻酸盐敷料和聚亚安酯敷料联合应用于中厚皮片供皮区,具有降低术后疼痛,减轻术后活动不便,操作方便,缩短供皮区愈合时间的优点,值得临床推广应用。     

应用冷宁康敷料治疗烧伤和整形供皮区创面42例

目的通过使用新型烧伤敷料治疗二度烧伤和整形供皮区创面，旨在减少病人的痛苦，加快创面的愈合。方法在烧伤二度创面和整形供皮区创面应用冷宁康敷料42例，对照组分别用磺胺嘧啶银或油纱布，然后观察创面的愈合时间和质量。结果冷宁康组创面愈合时间缩短，愈合质量优于对照组。结果冷宁康敷料是一种安全可靠、使用方便的外用烧伤敷料。     

皮肤磨削术在儿童Ⅱ度烧伤创面治疗中的应用

目的：探讨磨削术治疗儿童Ⅱ度烧伤创面的临床效果。方法2012年9月至2013年9月北京丰台右安门医院收治的68例开水烫伤儿童烧伤患者,烧伤创面以深浅Ⅱ度为主,完全随机法分为皮肤磨削组（36例）和保守换药组（32例）。皮肤磨削组患儿伤后48 h 内,全身麻醉下行手术治疗,以钢丝球打磨创面坏死组织,直至创面出现弥漫性小出血点,银离子烫伤抗菌敷料覆盖于创面,纱布、棉垫加压包扎,5-7 d 去除外敷料,保留内层银离子烫伤抗菌敷料,给予外喷重组人表皮细胞生长因子;保守换药组采用传统换药方法：外涂复春散1号,抗菌敷料覆盖、重组人表皮细胞生长因子凝胶与抗菌剂隔天换药治疗。比较两组患儿住院期间发热次数、换药次数、创面愈合时间、创面疼痛情况、医疗费用、后期随访效果等方面资料。结果68例患儿均治愈,住院期间,皮肤磨削组患儿换药次数、发热次数、愈合时间、儿童疼痛行为量表（FLACC）评分均低于保守换药组患儿,两组比较差异均有统计学意义（t =-8.087、3.389、-3.971、-4.697,P 均〈0.05）,皮肤磨削组医疗费用高于保守换药组,两组比较差异有统计学意义（t =10.205,P〈0.05）。创面感染率、植皮百分率两组比较,差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。后期随访3个月,皮肤磨削组患儿术后大部分创面无明显增生,基本恢复正常,保守换药组愈合时间稍长,瘢痕增生较多。结论磨削术虽存在手术风险与费用高问题,但临床上治疗儿童Ⅱ度烧伤创面是一种有效可行的方法。     

富血小板血浆联合微粒皮移植在高原地区老年慢性小创面中的临床研究

目的探究在高原地区老年慢性小创面治疗中使用富血小板血浆(PRP)联合微粒皮移植的治疗效果。 方法选取2018年2月至2022年2月青海省人民医院烧伤整形科收治的老年慢性小创面患者60例。根据患者入院时间不同将患者分为观察组和对照组,观察组采用PRP联合微粒皮移植,对照组采用PRP联合刃厚邮状皮移植。采集患者的外周静脉血,采用二次离心法制备PRP;2组患者均于局部浸润麻醉下应用电动取皮机自大腿前内侧根据创面需要取合适大小刃厚皮片,皮片厚度约0.2 mm,观察组供受区比例为1∶4~1∶8,将所取皮片剪碎后切割成直径<1 mm²的微粒皮备用;对照组供受区比例为1∶1~1∶2,将所取皮片制备为大小约1 cm×1 cm的刃厚邮状皮备用。创面清创、止血后,观察组将制备好的微粒皮均匀涂抹在创面后以PRP填充创面,用聚氨酯泡沫敷料或凡士林纱布覆盖创面避免PRP流失及失活,清洁敷料覆盖并固定;对照组将制备好的PRP填充于创面,再将制备好的刃厚邮状皮片移植于PRP之上,用凡士林或聚氨酯泡沫敷料覆盖清洁敷料加压包扎。2组术后均常规行抗感染等治疗,术后第6、11、16、21、26天创面换药,直至创面完全愈合。术后第21天,统计2组患者的治疗有效率;统计2组患者的创面愈合时间;创面愈合后6个月,以温哥华瘢痕评估量表(VSS)对2组患者的瘢痕情况进行评估。数据比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验和χ²检验。 结果术后第21天,观察组治疗有效27例,无效3例,治疗有效率为90.00%;对照组治疗有效20例,无效10例,治疗有效率为66.67%,2组比较差异有统计学意义(χ²＝6.278,P＝0.043)。观察组创面愈合时间为为26.0(24.0, 27.0) d,短于对照组[43.0(39.8, 47.3) d],2组比较差异有统计学意义(Z＝－6.531,P<0.05)。创面愈合后6个月,观察组VSS评分中色素沉着、瘢痕厚度、血管分布和柔韧性评分分别为0(0, 0)、0(0, 0)、0(0, 0)、1(0, 1)分,均分别低于对照组[2.0(1.0, 2.3)、1.5(0.8, 2.0)、1(1, 2)、2(1, 3)分],2组比较差异均有统计学意义(Z＝－6.310、－4.838、－5.624、－4.431,P<0.05)。 结论在高原地区,对于老年慢性小创面的治疗,PRP联合微粒皮移植的创新技术具有提高治疗有效率、缩短创面愈合时间的疗效,为患者提供更多治愈的选择性。     

重组人粒细胞巨噬细胞刺激因子凝胶修复中厚皮供皮区创面

背景：将外用重组人粒细胞巨噬细胞刺激因子凝胶应用于中厚皮供皮区创面的报道不多,采用自身对照分不同厚度的研究目前尚未检索到。目的：观察重组人粒细胞巨噬细胞刺激因子凝胶促进中厚皮供皮区创面愈合的疗效。方法：选择需自体中厚皮片移植的烧伤及瘢痕增生患者60例,其中男47例,女13例,年龄18-65岁,供皮区为大腿部位,根据供皮区创面深度分为0.40 mm组和0.55 mm组,每组各30例,采用自身对照,选择两处面积相等、深度一致,部位对称的创面,或同一深度创面一分为二,根据随机原则分为治疗组和对照组。治疗组外用重组人粒细胞巨噬细胞刺激因子凝胶,对照组外用凡士林敷料。术后3,7,10,14 d换药,观察创面外观、愈合时间、愈合率及不良反应。结果与结论：术后14 d时,与对照组比较,治疗组创面相对光滑,色素沉着轻;治疗组不同时间点换药时创面疼痛刺激轻于对照组(P < 0.05),治疗组术后10,14 d的创面愈合率高于对照组(P < 0.05),治疗组创面愈合时间快于对照组(P < 0.05);所有病例在治疗期间未发现全身不适及过敏现象,也未见局部组织过度增生。表明外用重组人粒细胞巨噬细胞刺激因子凝胶能缩短中厚皮供皮区创面的愈合时间,提高愈合质量。中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：组织构建;骨细胞;软骨细胞;细胞培养;成纤维细胞;血管内皮细胞;骨质疏松;组织工程     

藻酸盐敷料应用于难愈性烧伤创面随机对照

背景:研究发现藻酸盐敷料可有效促进创面愈合,但对于烧伤难愈创面的研究尚须进一步开展。目的:观察藻酸盐敷料应用于烧伤患者难愈创面的临床效果。方法:60例患者随机分为常规换药组和藻酸盐敷料组,每组30例,两组患者年龄、性别、创面面积及全身状况等因素的差别均无显著性意义。常规换药组用凡士林纱布覆盖创面,藻酸盐敷料组用藻酸盐敷料覆盖创面。每两三天换药1次,直到创面愈合。对比观察两组创面愈合时间及愈合率、局部炎症反应和皮片排斥反应、创面愈合方式,创面愈合后皮肤质量情况。结果与结论:藻酸盐敷料较凡士林油纱可明显缩短创面愈合时间,提高创面愈合率,减轻局部炎症反应,创面愈合后皮肤质量明显提高。与常规换药相比,应用藻酸盐敷料可明显减少难愈性创面愈合时间,可作为难愈性创面的治疗方法之一。     

胶原蛋白海绵在头部取皮术中的临床应用效果研究

目的探讨胶原蛋白海绵在头部取皮术中对头部取皮区渗血量、换药疼痛程度、愈合时间、感染率等的影响。 方法回顾性分析2015年1月至2019年1月解放军联勤保障部队第九〇九医院全军烧伤中心收治的80例行头部取皮术的患者的病例资料。根据包扎方法，40例患者取皮区创面先胶原蛋白海绵贴敷后再凡士林纱布贴敷，纳入胶原蛋白组；另40例患者直接用凡士林纱布外敷，纳入凡士林纱布组。2组均用吸水敷料及不叠纱纱布(500 g)外敷加压包扎处理，观察各组创面渗血量、疼痛程度、愈合时间及感染率。对数据行t检验和χ²检验。 结果胶原蛋白组术后取皮区渗血量为(36±15) g，凡士林纱布组术后取皮区渗血量为(173±27) g，2组比较，胶原蛋白组渗血量明显减少，差异有显著性统计意义(t＝28.05，P<0.01)；胶原蛋白组取皮区换药疼痛程度为(3.0±1.1)分，凡士林纱布组取皮区换药疼痛程度为(6.9±1.0)分，2组比较，胶原蛋白可明显减轻术后换药疼痛，差异有显著性统计学意义(t＝16.85，P<0.01)；胶原蛋白组取皮区愈合时间为(7.8±1.0) d，凡士林纱布组取皮区愈合时间为(10.6±1.6) d，胶原蛋白组愈合时间较凡士林纱布组明显缩短，差异有显著性统计学意义(t＝9.37，P<0.01)；胶原蛋白组取皮区无感染病例，凡士林纱布组感染病例1例，2组感染率均较低，差异无统计学意义(χ²＝1.01，P＝1.00)。 结论胶原蛋白可明显减少创面渗血，减轻患者疼痛，缩短愈合时间，且无增加感染的风险。     

湿性敷料治疗皮肤Ⅱ度烧伤的比较

背景：已有基础实验证明,伤口在湿性环境下的愈合效果优于干性环境,湿性敷料的研究是皮肤创面愈合研究的重点。 目的：观察湿性敷料对皮肤Ⅱ度烧伤创面的治疗效果。 方法：选取在海南省人民医院门诊接受治疗的38例Ⅱ度烧伤患者,采用自身对照法将创面分为治疗组和对照组,治疗组采用湿性敷料覆盖治疗烧伤创面,对照组采用碘伏纱布或凡士林纱布覆盖,治疗后分别观察两种不同处理方法对创面的愈合效果及对疼痛程度的影响。 结果与结论：所有患者均纳入结果分析,治疗组患者烧伤创面的平均愈合时间为(9.8±3.1) d,对照组创面平均愈合时间为(13.1±2.2) d,两者比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.01)。治疗组创面疼痛程度明显低于对照组(P < 0.01)。使用湿性敷料(美皮贴或美皮康)治疗Ⅱ度烧伤,可以使创面愈合时间缩短,创面疼痛程度明显降低。     

Use of the hydrocolloidal dressing duoderm for skin donor sites for burns

We have made a study of the use of Duoderm hydroactive sterile occlusive dressing on 10 patients for skin donor sites. Its therapeutic efficacy is evident and the dressing enhances the wound debridement and accelerates the re-epithelialization, with complete healing in 8.5 days on the average. In comparison with a conventional dressing with paraffin gauze, Duoderm allows a more rapid re-epithelialization. In addition, the new skin is softer, smoother and more homogeneous. Duoderm is also easy to use and is well tolerated by the patients.     

Platelet-rich plasma promotes epithelialization and angiogenesis in a splitthickness skin graft donor site

Autologous platelet-rich plasma contains multiple growth factors. We performed a side-by-side (half-side) test between the platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-treated and control (untreated) sides of a split-thickness skin graft donor site, and compared the number of days until epithelialization and pain during gauze change. On day 13 after surgery, we performed punch biopsy on the two sides and for adjacent normal skin tissue and compared the epidermal thickness and numbers of collagen fibers and newly formed vessels in the dermis by H&E staining, elastica van Gieson staining, and α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) immunostaining. Epithelialization progressed more rapidly, pain during gauze change was milder, and the epidermal thickness and number of newly formed vessels in the dermis were significantly greater on the PRP-treated side. This study revealed that PRP promotes epithelialization and angiogenesis of split-thickness skin graft donor sites.     

护创膜对兔创面愈合的影响

目的探讨护创膜对兔创面愈合的影响。方法制做兔背全层创伤模型,分成实验组和对照组,创面分别外用护创膜及无菌凡士林敷料。伤后3、5、7、10、l4、17、21d观察两组创面愈合时间和创面愈合率;并分别取创面组织进行病理组织学检查评估创面的修复质量,对实验组和对照组的创面愈合时间和创面愈合率及修复质量进行观察比较。结果护创膜与凡士林纱布相比能加速创面愈合(P<0.O5),护创膜组在皮肤愈合的组织病理等级评分上优于凡士林纱布组(P<0.05)。结论护创膜促进创面愈合并提高愈合的质量,是创面修复的一种较理想的生物敷料。     

羧甲基壳聚糖膜促进大鼠微粒皮移植创面愈合的实验研究

目的：本研究旨在评估羧甲基壳聚糖膜取代异体皮作为微粒皮移植载体促进创面愈合的作用。方法28只大鼠中,每次随机抽取2只大鼠配对同时手术,在大鼠背部两侧制作直径25 mm、对称圆形全层皮肤缺损创面各1个,两侧创面分别设为实验组和对照组,均移植自体微粒皮,对照组创面覆盖相互配对大鼠的异体皮,实验组创面覆盖羧甲基壳聚糖膜。于术后7、11、14 d 观察记录各组创面愈合时间,并于术后7、14、19 d 采集创面组织行组织病理学检查。结果实验组的羧甲基壳聚糖膜覆盖下微粒皮能够成活,且能修复创面。实验组创面平均愈合时间为（15.6±2.0）d,短于对照组创面平均愈合时间为（18.8±1.9）d,两组比较,差异有统计学意义（t =8.987,P〈0.05）。组织切片结果显示：羧甲基壳聚糖膜覆盖下微粒皮修复的新生表皮层生长较异体皮覆盖下新生表皮厚。结论羧甲基壳聚糖膜作为生物敷料,能够有效地保护创面,提供微粒皮修复创面的微环境。可用于取代异体皮覆盖微粒皮移植的创面。     

Management of superficial to partial-thickness wounds

REFERENCE/CITATION: Wiechula R. The use of moist wound-healing dressings in the management of split-thickness skin graft donor sites: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Pract. 2003; 9:S9-S17. CLINICAL QUESTION: Do rates of healing, infection, and pain differ depending on whether nonmoist or moist dressings are used to manage superficial to partial-thickness wounds? DATA SOURCES: Investigations were identified by CINAHL, MEDLINE, Pre-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Current Contents, Health STAR, EMBASE, Expanded Academic Index, and Dissertation Abstracts International searches. The search terms included skin, graft, and donor. Additional searches were performed with reference lists and bibliographies of retrieved studies. STUDY SELECTION: To be included in the review, each study had to fulfill the following criteria: it had to be an intraindividual or prospective randomized controlled trial of human subjects; it had to include patients with postharvest split-thickness skin graft donor sites; it had to evaluate the effectiveness of primary and secondary wound dressings; and it had to have outcome measures that included healing (objective), infection (subjective), and pain (objective). DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction and study quality assessment procedures were developed specifically for this review based on Cochrane Collaboration, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Joanna Briggs Institute protocols and were performed independently by the author. Details of the procedures were not fully explained. The principal outcome measures were healing (proportion of sites healed within the study period or time to complete healing), rate of infection, and pain scores. The studies were grouped according to broad dressing type (nonmoist and moist) and specific types of moist dressings (hydrocolloids and polyurethane semipermeable transparent films). When comparable, study results were pooled and analyzed with a fixed-effects model. Data within broader dressing categories (nonmoist and moist) were analyzed with a random-effects model. chi (2) analysis was used to determine heterogeneity among the studies. RevMan software (version 4.04; Cochrane Centre, Oxford, UK) was used for statistical analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified 111 studies and 1 integrative review, of which 58 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inconsistency and variation in outcome measures and incomplete reporting of results prevented analysis of many studies. Wound healing was measured by days to complete healing (when dressings could be removed without trauma and pain) and wounds healed by day X (removal of dressings at regular intervals). Wound infection was subjectively measured based on clinical signs of infection (edema, heat, pain, or smell). Visual analog scales were used to measure pain levels. Among the broad categories of nonmoist (sterile gauze, fine mesh gauze, Xerofoam [Tyco Healthcare Group LP, Mansfield, MA]) and moist (DuoDERM hydrocolloid [ConvaTec, Princeton, NJ], Tegaderm transparent film [3M Health Care, St Paul, MN], Opsite transparent film [Smith & Nephew, London, UK]) dressings, the outcomes of healing, infection, and pain were analyzed. In 6 studies, the findings significantly favored moist dressings, compared with nonmoist dressings, for days to complete healing (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -3.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.91, -2.02). In 9 studies, wounds healed by day X (day 7, 8, 9, 10, or 12) were analyzed. The results were varied and inconclusive because of a small number of trials and subjects. Among 10 studies, no significant difference was noted in infection rates between nonmoist and moist dressings (odds ratio [OR] = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.14, 1.18). Three studies using visual analog scales for the outcome of pain were converted into a uniform scale of 1 to 10 (10 representing most painful). The findings significantly favored moist dressings over nonmoist dressings (WMD = -1.75, 95% CI = -2.94, -0.56). Among nonmoist and specific types of moist dressings, a subset analysis was performed to examine the outcomes of healing, infection, and pain. For days to complete healing, 2 investigations significantly favored hydrocolloid dressings over nonmoist dressings (WMD = -2.19, 95% CI = -2.89, -1.49). Additionally, in 2 studies, hydrocolloid dressings were significantly favored over other moist dressings (semiocclusive hydrocolloid and transparent film) for days to complete healing (WMD = -1.45, 95% CI = -2.17, -0.74). In 3 studies, the data significantly favored polyurethane semipermeable transparent film dressings over nonmoist dressings for days to complete healing (WMD = -2.82, 95% CI = -3.58, -2.07). For infection rates, 4 studies significantly favored hydrocolloid dressings over nonmoist dressings (OR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.07, 0.65). In 4 other studies, polyurethane semipermeable transparent film dressings were significantly favored over nonmoist dressings with regard to infection rates (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09, 0.91). For the outcome of pain, varied outcome measures and insufficient data prevented analysis among specific types of moist dressings.CONCLUSIONS: Moist dressings decreased the days to complete healing and pain scores when compared with nonmoist dressings. Among the broad categories of nonmoist and moist dressings, no differences were found in infection rates. The data on specific types of moist dressings revealed that days to complete healing were decreased with hydrocolloid dressings compared with nonmoist and other moist dressings. Hydrocolloid dressings also decreased infection rates compared with nonmoist dressings. Polyurethane semipermeable transparent film dressings also decreased days to complete healing and infection rates compared with nonmoist dressings. Overall, the data indicated that hydrocolloid dressings are more effective than nonmoist dressings in terms of rates of healing, infection, and pain in the management of superficial to partial-thickness wounds. The variations in outcome measures among the included studies should be considered in interpreting these findings.