DURAFIBER

Highly Absorbent Gelling Fibre Dressing

 

DURAFIBER AgTo Request a Sample of the New DURAFIBER Ag please complete the Sample Request Form

FORM

Further Production Information

DURAFIBER
DURAFIBER Ag 

Contact Us

DURAFIBER RangeTo discover more about the DURAFIBER range please complete the Enquiry Form

Form

US Health Care Professionals

If you are in the US, and a Health Care Professional, please visit the Smith & Nephew US DURAFIBER website

Link

This information is intended for Healthcare Professionals only.
DURAFIBER Gelling Fibre Dressing Range

About DURAFIBER

The DURAFIBER range is a new generation of strong non woven gelling fibre dressings with the benefit of clean one piece removal1-6

 

DURAFIBER, half wet, half dryStrength in Performance

The DURAFIBER range is a new generation of high performing gelling fibre dressing designed to meet the many challenges posed by medium and heavily exuding infected and non infected wounds.

Specially designed with innovative fibre technology, DURAFIBER features a unique non-woven fibre blend that is integral to its high performance.

This unique blend provides an exclusive combination of benefits that set DURAFIBER dressings apart from conventional gelling fibre dressings.

Clean One-Piece Removal1-6

DURAFIBER Clean one piece removalHigh Wet Strength and Structural Integrity1-6 

  • Low risk of fibre shed
    and dressing residue3,5
  • Minimal pain and trauma
    for the patient on dressing removal1-6

DURAFIBER Dressings Technology Video

 

Effective Exudate Management

DURAFIBER Locking In Video StillHigh Absorption and Retention Capacity1,2,4,9

  • Minimal lateral wicking – helps protect peri-wound skin against the risk of maceration2,3,5,8,11 
  • Locks in fluid and harmful bacteria – may help prevent the risk of cross contamination on removal1,2,4,7-10,12,13

Lateral Wicking Test Video

This in vitro experiment illustrates the ability of DURAFIBER dressings to lock in absorbed fluid and so control the lateral spread of wound fluid. 1,2,8

Once applied, DURAFIBER rapidly wicks the fluid away from the surface of the petri dish, (representative of exudate in a wound bed). The absorbed fluid does not spread to the outer edges of the dressing but is contained within the area of the simulated wound bed.

The ability of a dressing to control the lateral spread of fluid is important in helping to minimise the risk of peri-wound maceration.

 

Locking In Test Video

This in vitro experiment uses different coloured fluids to illustrate the ability of DURAFIBER dressings to lock in the fluid it absorbs with the result that there is no bleeding of the colours into one another1,2,7.

The ability of a dressing to lock in fluid is important for helping to remove excess fluid and any harmful bacteria it contains away from the wound bed and may reduce the risk of cross contamination on dressing removal.

 


Uncompromised Patient Comfort3,5

DURAFIBER conforming gelGentle Conformable Gel Matrix1,2,5,19  

  • Helps promote patient
    concordance3,5
  • Reduces dead space
    where bacteria may proliferate1,2,12,19,20

Contact Test Video

This in vitro experiment shows how the DURAFIBER dressing rapidly transforms into a soft cohesive gel as it is hydrated with fluid and conforms intimately to the simulated wound bed. The ability of a dressing to maintain close contact with the wound surface without adhering is key in helping to maintain a moist wound environment favourable for healing. It also helps to minimise the risk of pooling; reduce the potential for dead space between the wound and dressing interface and minimise the potential for trauma on dressing removal 1,2,12

 


Assured Dressing Efficiencies

Unique Anti-Shrinkage Properties1,2,4

  • Minimal shrinkage when wet – may help sustained coverage1,2,4
  • Maintains a favourable moist wound healing environment1,18,21

 

Specially Designed with Innovative Technology

The DURAFIBER dressing range has a unique non woven fibre blend that is integral to its high performance.

20%

 Natural strengthening cellulose fibres

+

80%

 Gelling cellulose ethyl sulphonate fibres (CES)

=

100%

 Finely spun matrix that forms a soft cohesive gel on contact with exudate1-6

DURAFIBER animation stillThis unique blend provides an exclusive combination of properties that enables DURAFIBER to meet the many challenges of exuding wounds:

  • High Wet Strength: Cellulose fibres give the dry and gelled matrix in-built structural integrity1-6
  • Excellent Absorbency: Gelling fibres swell and gel on contact with exudate absorbing and locking in fluid1,2,4-6
  • Minimal Shrinkage: Reinforcing fibres retain the dressings shape when wet, minimising shrinkage1,2,4
  • Highly Conformable: Transforms into a soft, cohesive gel sheet which contours closely to the wound bed1-3,5,10,14

DURAFIBER Dressings Product Information

DURAFIBER ALLEVYN Gentle Border Multisite
DURAFIBER ALLEVYN  Gentle Border Multisite

ALLEVYN Dressings - an ideal choice of secondary fixation.28,30


DURAFIBER Ag Dressings

DURAFIBER AgDURAFIBER Ag dressings are effective against infection

Sustained release of silver for up to 7 days (in vitro14,15

Starts to kill pathogens within 30 minutes of contact (shown in vitro vs. Staphylocuccus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, MRSA and VRE)16

Provides broad spectrum antimicrobial activity at 4 hours against pathogens (shown in vitro vs.

DURAFIBER AgPseudomonas aeruginosa, VRE, Bacteroides fragilisCandida albicans and Rhizopus arrhizus)17

Sustains antimicrobial activity for up to 7 days against a broad spectrum of aerobic, anaerobic bacteria including antibiotic resistant strains (shown in vitro vs. MRSA, VRE, yeasts, filamentous fungi wound pathogens)14,15

DURAFIBER Ag Dressings Product Information

 

References

1 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.056 R1 05 2010 DURAFIBER Dressing Physical Properties.

2 DS.11.187.DOF Testing Performed as Part of DURAFIBER Photo Shoot.

3 Case Series Evaluation: The Use of DURAFIBER on Exuding Wounds. Wounds UK 2012,Vol 8, No 3.

4 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R1, DURAFIBER Ag Dressing Physical Properties, Dowler A, September 2010.

5 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on File Report Reference OR- DOF/28, A prospective, open, multicentre study to evaluate a new fibrous silver dressing in the treatment of moderate to highly exuding chronic wounds, Rafiq G, Fenton S January 2013.

6 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/093/DOF, Integrity Testing of DURAFIBER Ag in horse serum and ionic solution, Dowler A, April 2012.

7 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Data on File 10.040.01 April 2010 Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER dressing using confocal microscopy.

8 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.042 R1 Report of testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER versus AquacelTM and Kaltostat TM dressings.

9 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/109/DOF, Testing on Absorption of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag during compression, Dowler A, April 2012.

10 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/158/DOF, Sequestration Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and SorbsanTM Silver Flat, Dowler A,June 2012.

11 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/108/DOF, Testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag and MaxorbTM Extra Ag dressings, Dowler A, April 2012.

12 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report, The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate, Report Reference RR-WMP06290-40-01, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

13 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1208007, Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER Ag dressing using confocal microscopy. Lumb H, August 2012.

14 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004007, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

15 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009012, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

16 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004009, Assessment of the contact kill activity of DURAFIBER Ag against common wound pathogens, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

17 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009013, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 4 hour period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

18 World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) Principles of best practice. Wound exudate and the role of dressings. A consensus document London MED Ltd. 2007.

19 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/143/DOF, Intimate Contact Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and Sorbsan Silver Flat, Dowler A, June 2012.

20 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report RR WMP06290-40-01 The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate.

21 The Clinical and Physical Properties of DURAFIBER Ag, the Moist Wound Environment and the Autolytic Debridement, Myers D, July 2012.

22 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.013 R1 02 2010 Aquacel Dressing Physical Properties.

23 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R2, Aquacel Ag Dressing Physical Properties.

24 NHS Drug Tariff August 2012 http://www.ppa.org.uk/ppa/edit_intro.htm

25 Unit costs of health and social care, Curtis, L. PSSRU: 2010.

26 Siddiqui AR, Bernstein JM (2010).

27 DURAFIBER Technology video

28 Smith & Nephew Report DS/12/314 R December 2012 Wound Model Testing of DURAFIBER with various secondary dressings

29 DURAFIBER SMTL report 3303 Wound Dressing Testing

30 Smith & Nephew Report Development Services, Analytical Report Reference DS/10/053/R1, Wound Model Testing of DURFAIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag dressings with various secondary dressings, Dowler A, August 2010.

*In comparison with standard Aquacel dressings, excludes Aquacel Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Extra

**In comparison with standard Aquacel Ag dressings, excludes Aquacel Ag Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Ag Extra

Aquacel is a trademark of Convatec

TM All trademarks acknowledged

Human Benefits

Introduction

The DURAFIBER range is a new generation of highly absorbent non-woven gelling fibre dressings, which features an innovative new fibre technology and a unique fibre blend.1,2,4,9

DURAFIBER dressings respond to contact with exudate by forming a soft cohesive gel which rapidly absorbs excess exudate, locks in the absorbed wound fluid and bacteria it may contain and contours intimately to the wound bed. 1,2,3-5,7,8,10,14

  • High wet strength and structural integrity – clean one piece dressing removal1-6
  • High absorption and retention capacity – effective exudate management1-6,9
  • Unique anti shrinkage properties – optimal dressing efficiencies1,2,4
  • Softness and conformability – uncompromised patient comfort1,2,3,5

The following in-vitro experiments clearly demonstrate the various properties associated with DURAFIBER's innovative dressing technology.

Please see below a brief description of each test together with a video clip showing the outcome.

Contact Test2 

This in vitro experiment shows how the DURAFIBER dressing rapidly transforms into a soft cohesive gel as it is hydrated with fluid and conforms intimately to the simulated wound bed. The ability of a dressing to maintain close contact with the wound surface without adhering is key in helping to maintain a moist wound environment favourable for healing. It also helps to minimise the risk of pooling; reduce the potential for dead space between the wound and dressing interface and minimise the potential for trauma on dressing removal 1,2,12

Locking In Test2 

This in vitro experiment uses different coloured fluids to illustrate the ability of DURAFIBER dressings to lock in the fluid it absorbs with the result that there is no bleeding of the colours into one another1,2,7.

The ability of a dressing to lock in fluid is important for helping to remove excess fluid and any harmful bacteria it contains away from the wound bed and may reduce the risk of cross contamination on dressing removal.

Lateral Wicking Test2 

This in vitro experiment illustrates the ability of DURAFIBER dressings to lock in absorbed fluid and so control the lateral spread of wound fluid. 1,2,8

Once applied, DURAFIBER rapidly wicks the fluid away from the surface of the petri dish, (representative of exudate in a wound bed). The absorbed fluid does not spread to the outer edges of the dressing but is contained within the area of the simulated wound bed.

The ability of a dressing to control the lateral spread of fluid is important in helping to minimise the risk of peri-wound maceration.

Absorbency and Shrinkage Test2 

This in vitro experiment demonstrates the ability of DURAFIBER dressings to absorb markedly more fluid and to shrink noticeably less compared to standard Aquacel™*1,2,15

Both DURAFIBER and Aquacel*1,2,15 dressings have 25ml of fluid added to them. The excess fluid that they haven't absorbed is measured and compared in a test tube. The shrinkage seen with each dressing is measured by comparing the original dry and gelled dressing size.

Dressing absorbency is important for ensuring effective fluid management and minimal dressing shrinkage is important for achieving sustained wound bed coverage. 

Dressing Integrity and Gelled Strength Test2 

This in vitro experiment demonstrates the markedly greater gelled strength and integrity of DURAFIBER dressings compared to Aquacel™*1,2,15.

Each dressing has fluid added to the middle of the dressing to simulate the absorption of dressing exudate. Weights are then attached to each dressing until breaking point is reached. The weight required to break the two dressings is measured and compared.

Dressing strength is important for ensuring one piece dressing removal and low risk of dressing residue.5

 

  DURAFIBER Dressings DURAFIBER Ag Dressings

High gelled strength and structural integrity for clean one piece removal1-6

“performed well and was very easy to remove and stayed in one piece3

“...was removed as a single piece, leaving no residue, in >95%  of removals5

Excellent absorbency for effective fluid management and minimal risk of peri-wound maceration 1-6,8,9,11

“demonstrated excellent fluid handling properties and was effective at managing the wound exudate3

“was rated as clinically acceptable for exudate handling at 95.8% of assessments5

Minimal dressing shrinkage for sustained coverage and optimal dressing efficiencies 1,2,4

 “continued to demonstrate very good ability to conform to the wound bed3

“the mean patient dressing wear time was 6.4 days5

Soft and highly conformable for uncompromised patient comfort 1,2,3,5

“patient comfort was found to be excellent3

“Comfortable during wear at 94.8% of assessments5” 

 

DURAFIBER Clinical Evidence

Author Title Outcome  
Barrett S
Callaghan R
Ivins N
Stephen -Haynes J
Case series evaluation:
the use of Durafiber on
exuding wounds
Simon Barrett, Rosie Callaghan, Nicky Ivins and Professor Jackie Stephen-Haynes have completed a case series evaluating the use of the new DURAFIBER(Smith&Nephew) dressing on a total of ten patients with a range of wound aetiologies.

The case studies showed that DURAFIBER has the capability to contain high levels of exudate, provide comfort for patients during wear, and on removal as a result of its unique gelled structure and ability to remain intact.

PDF
(1.5MB)

 

 

Author Title Outcome  
Milne J A clinical evaluation of DURAFIBER, a new generation of fibrous gelling dressings "The majority of clinicians rated the performance of DURAFIBER as being either excellent or very good" for ease of dressing application, exudate handling ability, dressing conformability and ease of dressing removal. PDF (122 KB)

 

Evidence Graph

 

Summary of clinician feedback on DURAFIBER in-use performance

 

Case Study

Author Title Outcome  

Murray S, Pardoe A.

Case study of DURAFIBER on a dehisced surgical wound

DURAFIBER in situDURAFIBER achieved “complete healing in four weeks” with the ileostomy reversed.

 

DURAFIBER in situ

PDF (1.4MB)

 

 

Case Study

Author Title Outcome  

Grothier L

A case study illustrating the clinical benefits of using a fibrous gelling dressing

The “wound exudate had been managed effectively being contained within the DURAFIBER dressing with no shrinkage observed.”

PDF (412 KB)

 

 

DURAFIBER Ag

A prospective, open, multi centre study to evaluate a new fibrous silver dressing in the treatment of moderate to highly exuding chronic wounds5.

Ease of Use Graph

Ease of Use

  • The fibrous silver dressing Rated as clinically acceptable for the indication in 100% of patients     
  • Clinicians satisfied with the exudate handling of the fibrous silver dressing in 95.8% of the assessments
  • Easy to apply at 100% of assessments
  • Removed as a single piece in 96.8% of removals
  • No pain on application at 95.8% of assessments
  • No pain on removal at 88.4% of assessments
  • Mean wear time of 6.4 Days

 

Clinical Outcomes

Graph
50% of wounds healed by week 8

 

Graph

There was significant evidence of a reduction in the presence of clinical wound infection between baseline and weeks 4 (p<0.001) and week 8 (p<0.001).

 

Graph

There was also significant evidence of a reduction in the presence of clinical signs of infection between baseline and weeks 4 (p=0.002) and 8 (p<0.001).

 

Graph

The median percentage reduction in wound dimensions between baseline and study completion and the resulting median percentage reduction per week were as follows: Area 98.2% (12.9% per week), Depth 100% (12.7% per week) 

 

References

1 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.056 R1 05 2010 DURAFIBER Dressing Physical Properties.

2 DS.11.187.DOF Testing Performed as Part of DURAFIBER Photo Shoot.

3 Case Series Evaluation: The Use of DURAFIBER on Exuding Wounds. Wounds UK 2012,Vol 8, No 3.

4 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R1, DURAFIBER Ag Dressing Physical Properties, Dowler A, September 2010.

5 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on File Report Reference OR- DOF/28, A prospective, open, multicentre study to evaluate a new fibrous silver dressing in the treatment of moderate to highly exuding chronic wounds, Rafiq G, Fenton S January 2013.

6 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/093/DOF, Integrity Testing of DURAFIBER Ag in horse serum and ionic solution, Dowler A, April 2012.

7 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Data on File 10.040.01 April 2010 Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER dressing using confocal microscopy.

8 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.042 R1 Report of testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER versus AquacelTM and Kaltostat TM dressings.

9 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/109/DOF, Testing on Absorption of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag during compression, Dowler A, April 2012.

10 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/158/DOF, Sequestration Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and SorbsanTM Silver Flat, Dowler A,June 2012.

11 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/108/DOF, Testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag and MaxorbTM Extra Ag dressings, Dowler A, April 2012.

12 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report, The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate, Report Reference RR-WMP06290-40-01, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

13 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1208007, Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER Ag dressing using confocal microscopy. Lumb H, August 2012.

14 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004007, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

15 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009012, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

16 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004009, Assessment of the contact kill activity of DURAFIBER Ag against common wound pathogens, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

17 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009013, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 4 hour period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

18 World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) Principles of best practice. Wound exudate and the role of dressings. A consensus document London MED Ltd. 2007.

19 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/143/DOF, Intimate Contact Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and Sorbsan Silver Flat, Dowler A, June 2012.

20 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report RR WMP06290-40-01 The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate.

21 The Clinical and Physical Properties of DURAFIBER Ag, the Moist Wound Environment and the Autolytic Debridement, Myers D, July 2012.

22 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.013 R1 02 2010 Aquacel Dressing Physical Properties.

23 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R2, Aquacel Ag Dressing Physical Properties.

24 NHS Drug Tariff August 2012 http://www.ppa.org.uk/ppa/edit_intro.htm

25 Unit costs of health and social care, Curtis, L. PSSRU: 2010.

26 Siddiqui AR, Bernstein JM (2010).

27 DURAFIBER Technology video

28 Smith & Nephew Report DS/12/314 R December 2012 Wound Model Testing of DURAFIBER with various secondary dressings

29 DURAFIBER SMTL report 3303 Wound Dressing Testing

30 Smith & Nephew Report Development Services, Analytical Report Reference DS/10/053/R1, Wound Model Testing of DURFAIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag dressings with various secondary dressings, Dowler A, August 2010.

*In comparison with standard Aquacel dressings, excludes Aquacel Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Extra

**In comparison with standard Aquacel Ag dressings, excludes Aquacel Ag Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Ag Extra

Aquacel is a trademark of Convatec

TM All trademarks acknowledged

References relate to in vitro testing excluding references 3,5,18,21,24,25,26

Economic Benefits

Gentle on the Budget 1-6

With its unique fibre blend, DURAFIBER dressings provide a combination of clinical benefits that support your patient as well as your budget.

Clean one piece removal 1-6

Minimal nursing time spent on dressing changes24,25   DURAFIBER Dressing range
     
Effective fluid management1-6,9 

Up to 7-day wear times
     
Comfortable gel matrix with minimal shrinkage1-5,19

Promotes optimal dressing efficiencies and patient concordance3,5

Sustained antimicrobial activity (in vitro)14,15 

>

May reduce the associated costs of infection5,26

Clinical case studies of DURAFIBER’s performance are available on request.

 

Example Savings Comparison

Annual budget impact of using DURAFIBER dressings for exuding wounds5,24,25

One important contributing factor to the use of resources in the treatement of exuding wounds is how long the dressing can be left in place. This in turn is dependent on a number of factors,and in particular the ability of the dressing to manage wound exudate.This model investigates the use of resources and associated costs of using gelling fibre dressings, comparing DURAFIBER with a typical existing protocol.

Results

Number of wounds on caseload

 

Time dressing left in place (Usual Care)

 

Time dressing left in place (DURAFIBER)

 

Time required to change dressing

 

Percentage of wounds switched to 6 days

200

 

3
days

 

6
days

 

20
minutes

 

50%

 

Annual use of resources Usual Care DURAFIBER Saving
Number of primary dressings 24,333 18,250  
Number of covering dressings 24,333 18,250  
Nurse time required (hours) 8,111 6,083 2,028
Nurse time (FTE’s) 4.45 3.34 1.11

 

Annual costs  Usual Care DURAFIBER Saving
Primary dressings £56,697 £38,325 £18,372
Covering dressings £92,953 £69,715 £23,238
Nurse time £551,556 £413,667 £137,889
Total £701,206 £521,707 £179,499


£179,499
cost saving

25.6% percentage
cost saving

 

Chart

DURAFIBER Cost Calculator chart

Clinical case studies of  DURAFIBER’s performance are available on request.


References

1 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.056 R1 05 2010 DURAFIBER Dressing Physical Properties.

2 DS.11.187.DOF Testing Performed as Part of DURAFIBER Photo Shoot.

3 Case Series Evaluation: The Use of DURAFIBER on Exuding Wounds. Wounds UK 2012,Vol 8, No 3.

4 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R1, DURAFIBER Ag Dressing Physical Properties, Dowler A, September 2010.

5 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on File Report Reference OR- DOF/28, A prospective, open, multicentre study to evaluate a new fibrous silver dressing in the treatment of moderate to highly exuding chronic wounds, Rafiq G, Fenton S January 2013.

6 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/093/DOF, Integrity Testing of DURAFIBER Ag in horse serum and ionic solution, Dowler A, April 2012.

7 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Data on File 10.040.01 April 2010 Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER dressing using confocal microscopy.

8 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.042 R1 Report of testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER versus AquacelTM and Kaltostat TM dressings.

9 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/109/DOF, Testing on Absorption of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag during compression, Dowler A, April 2012.

10 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/158/DOF, Sequestration Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and SorbsanTM Silver Flat, Dowler A,June 2012.

11 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/108/DOF, Testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag and MaxorbTM Extra Ag dressings, Dowler A, April 2012.

12 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report, The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate, Report Reference RR-WMP06290-40-01, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

13 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1208007, Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER Ag dressing using confocal microscopy. Lumb H, August 2012.

14 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004007, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

15 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009012, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

16 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004009, Assessment of the contact kill activity of DURAFIBER Ag against common wound pathogens, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

17 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009013, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 4 hour period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

18 World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) Principles of best practice. Wound exudate and the role of dressings. A consensus document London MED Ltd. 2007.

19 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/143/DOF, Intimate Contact Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and Sorbsan Silver Flat, Dowler A, June 2012.

20 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report RR WMP06290-40-01 The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate.

21 The Clinical and Physical Properties of DURAFIBER Ag, the Moist Wound Environment and the Autolytic Debridement, Myers D, July 2012.

22 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.013 R1 02 2010 Aquacel Dressing Physical Properties.

23 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R2, Aquacel Ag Dressing Physical Properties.

24 NHS Drug Tariff August 2012 http://www.ppa.org.uk/ppa/edit_intro.htm

25 Unit costs of health and social care, Curtis, L. PSSRU: 2010.

26 Siddiqui AR, Bernstein JM (2010).

27 DURAFIBER Technology video

28 Smith & Nephew Report DS/12/314 R December 2012 Wound Model Testing of DURAFIBER with various secondary dressings

29 DURAFIBER SMTL report 3303 Wound Dressing Testing

30 Smith & Nephew Report Development Services, Analytical Report Reference DS/10/053/R1, Wound Model Testing of DURFAIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag dressings with various secondary dressings, Dowler A, August 2010.

*In comparison with standard Aquacel dressings, excludes Aquacel Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Extra

**In comparison with standard Aquacel Ag dressings, excludes Aquacel Ag Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Ag Extra

Aquacel is a trademark of Convatec

TM All trademarks acknowledged

References relate to in vitro testing excluding references 3,5,18,21,24,25,26

Competitor Comparisons

DURAFIBER   DURAFIBER Ag
DURAFIBER  Dressings   DURAFIBER Ag  Dressings

 

DURAFIBER Competitor Comparisons

In vitro comparison of DURAFIBER performance

3.5 x greater wet tensile strength1,2,8*
DURAFIBER Weight Comparsion Aquacel

High Gelled Strength and Structural Integrity is Important for Ensuring:

  • Clean one piece dressing removal
  • Low risk of fibre shed and dressing residue
  • Minimal pain and trauma for the patient

Dressing Integrity and Gelled Strength Video 

This in vitro experiment demonstrates the markedly greater gelled strength and integrity of DURAFIBER dressings compared to Aquacel™*1,2,15.

Each dressing has fluid added to the middle of the dressing to simulate the absorption of dressing exudate. Weights are then attached to each dressing until breaking point is reached. The weight required to break the two dressings is measured and compared.

Dressing strength is important for ensuring one piece dressing removal and low risk of dressing residue.5

 

30% greater absorbency1,2,8*
DURAFIBER - Beaker Aquacel

High Absorbency is Important for Ensuring:

  • Effective fluid management
  • Minimal risk of peri-wound maceration

Absorbency and Shrinkage Video 

This in vitro experiment demonstrates the ability of DURAFIBER dressings to absorb markedly more fluid and to shrink noticeably less compared to standard Aquacel™*1,2,15

Both DURAFIBER and Aquacel*1,2,15 dressings have 25ml of fluid added to them. The excess fluid that they haven't absorbed is measured and compared in a test tube. The shrinkage seen with each dressing is measured by comparing the original dry and gelled dressing size.

Dressing absorbency is important for ensuring effective fluid management and minimal dressing shrinkage is important for achieving sustained wound bed coverage. 

 

43% less shrinkage1,2,8*
DURAFIBER - Shrinkage Aquacel

Minimal Dressing Shrinkage is Important for Ensuring:

  • Sustained, comfortable dressing coverage
  • Optimal dressing efficiencies

*In comparison with standard Aquacel dressings, excludes Aquacel Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Extra

 

DURAFIBER Ag Competitor Comparisons

3.75 x greater wet tensile strength1,2,8**
DURAFIBER Ag Aquacel Ag

High Gelled Strength and Structural Integrity is Important for Ensuring:

  • Clean one piece dressing removal
  • Low risk of fibre shed and dressing residue
  • Minimal pain and trauma for the patient

 

17% greater absorbency1,2,8**
DURAFIBER Ag Aquacel Ag

High Absorbency is Important for Ensuring:

  • Effective fluid management
  • Minimal risk of peri-wound maceration

 

46% less shrinkage1,2,8**
DURAFIBER Ag Aquacel Ag

Minimal Dressing Shrinkage is Important for Ensuring:

  • Sustained, comfortable dressing coverage
  • Optimal dressing efficiencies

 

References

1 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.056 R1 05 2010 DURAFIBER Dressing Physical Properties.

2 DS.11.187.DOF Testing Performed as Part of DURAFIBER Photo Shoot.

3 Case Series Evaluation: The Use of DURAFIBER on Exuding Wounds. Wounds UK 2012,Vol 8, No 3.

4 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R1, DURAFIBER Ag Dressing Physical Properties, Dowler A, September 2010.

5 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on File Report Reference OR- DOF/28, A prospective, open, multicentre study to evaluate a new fibrous silver dressing in the treatment of moderate to highly exuding chronic wounds, Rafiq G, Fenton S January 2013.

6 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/093/DOF, Integrity Testing of DURAFIBER Ag in horse serum and ionic solution, Dowler A, April 2012.

7 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Data on File 10.040.01 April 2010 Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER dressing using confocal microscopy.

8 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.042 R1 Report of testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER versus AquacelTM and Kaltostat TM dressings.

9 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/109/DOF, Testing on Absorption of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag during compression, Dowler A, April 2012.

10 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/158/DOF, Sequestration Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and SorbsanTM Silver Flat, Dowler A,June 2012.

11 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/108/DOF, Testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag and MaxorbTM Extra Ag dressings, Dowler A, April 2012.

12 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report, The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate, Report Reference RR-WMP06290-40-01, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

13 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1208007, Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER Ag dressing using confocal microscopy. Lumb H, August 2012.

14 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004007, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

15 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009012, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

16 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004009, Assessment of the contact kill activity of DURAFIBER Ag against common wound pathogens, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

17 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009013, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 4 hour period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

18 World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) Principles of best practice. Wound exudate and the role of dressings. A consensus document London MED Ltd. 2007.

19 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/143/DOF, Intimate Contact Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and Sorbsan Silver Flat, Dowler A, June 2012.

20 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report RR WMP06290-40-01 The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate.

21 The Clinical and Physical Properties of DURAFIBER Ag, the Moist Wound Environment and the Autolytic Debridement, Myers D, July 2012.

22 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.013 R1 02 2010 Aquacel Dressing Physical Properties.

23 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R2, Aquacel Ag Dressing Physical Properties.

24 NHS Drug Tariff August 2012 http://www.ppa.org.uk/ppa/edit_intro.htm

25 Unit costs of health and social care, Curtis, L. PSSRU: 2010.

26 Siddiqui AR, Bernstein JM (2010).

27 DURAFIBER Technology video

28 Smith & Nephew Report DS/12/314 R December 2012 Wound Model Testing of DURAFIBER with various secondary dressings

29 DURAFIBER SMTL report 3303 Wound Dressing Testing

30 Smith & Nephew Report Development Services, Analytical Report Reference DS/10/053/R1, Wound Model Testing of DURFAIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag dressings with various secondary dressings, Dowler A, August 2010.

*In comparison with standard Aquacel dressings, excludes Aquacel Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Extra

**In comparison with standard Aquacel Ag dressings, excludes Aquacel Ag Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Ag Extra

Aquacel is a trademark of Convatec

TM All trademarks acknowledged

References relate to in vitro testing excluding references 3,5,18,21,24,25,26

FAQs

DURAFIBERFrequently Asked Questions About DURAFIBER Dressings

What sort of wounds can DURAFIBER be used on?

DURAFIBER can be used to manage chronic and acute full thickness, partial thickness or shallow granulating wounds such as: leg ulcers, pressure ulcers, diabetic ulcers, partial thickness burns, donor sites, surgical and trauma wounds, wounds left to heal by secondary intent, wounds prone to bleeding post debridement. NB DURAFIBER is not designed to be used as a surgical sponge.

How often does DURAFIBER need to be changed?

DURAFIBER can remain in place for up to 7 days as its high absorbent capacity helps to provide effective fluid management. Alternatively, it should be changed when clinically indicated eg if excessive exudate is present or leakage.

What sizes is DURAFIBER available in?

DURAFIBER is available in the following sizes - a) square: 5x5cm, 10x10cm, 15x15cm, b) rectangular: 4x10cm, 4x20cm, 4x30cm and c) ribbon: 2x45cm

How is DURAFIBER sterilised?

DURAFIBER is gamma irradiated.

How is DURAFIBER packaged?

DURAFIBER is packed in paper poly packaging.

How does the construction of DURAFIBER differ to Aquacel™* ?

With regard to the composition of the two products, both DURAFIBER and Aquacel are composed from 100% cellulose base fibres. The difference between the two products lies in the way in which these base fibres are modified to produce a dressing with gelling and absorbency properties.  Convatec modifies the base cellulose fibres by carboxymethylation to produce a carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) based dressing which is capable of transforming into a gel and absorbing exudate.

Convatec have intellectual property protection that prevents other manufacturers from using CMC fibres in wound dressings of this type. With DURAFIBER, Smith & Nephew have developed an alternative way of modifiying the base cellulose fibres, namely ethyl sulphonation. This process produces a cellulose ethyl sulphonate (CES) based dressing which is similarly capable of transforming into a gel and absorbing exudate.

Does DURAFIBER work in the same way as Aquacel*?

DURAFIBER is a non woven gelling fibre dressing which has been designed to provide comparable performance to Aquacel with the result that it forms a soft cohesive gel on contact with fluid; conforms to the wound bed; locks in absorbed fluid and bacteria and prevents the lateral spread of fluid so minimising the risk of peri wound maceration 1,2,7,8

What benefits does DURAFIBER offer compared to Aquacel?

Compared to standard Aquacel, DURAFIBER has also been designed to offer over three and a half times better wet strength - gelled strength is important for facilitating easy one piece dressing removal 1,2,22, over 30% better absorbency - dressing absorbency is important for ensuring effective fluid management 1,2,22 and 43% less dressing shrinkage - minimal shrinkage is key to achieving sustained wound bed coverage 1,2,22

What information is there showing the performance of the product versus Aquacel*?

The physical properties of DURAFIBER and standard Aquacel have been compared in-vitro by Smith & Nephew and by an independent test house, SMTL. The results clearly show the two dressings to have similar performance characteristics, regardless of the differences in the chemical modification process 1,2,22. These results also show DURAFIBER to have better wet strength1,2,22,29, greater absorbency 1,2,22 and reduced dressing shrinkage 1,2,22 compared to standard Aquacel.

 

DURAFIBER AgFrequently Asked Questions About DURAFIBER Ag Dressings

What sort of wounds can DURAFIBER Ag be used on?

DURAFIBER Ag can be used to manage chronic and acute, full thickness, partial thickness, or shallow granulating exuding wounds. For example: leg ulcers; pressure ulcers; diabetic ulcers; surgical wounds; traumatic wounds; donor sites; partial thickness burns; tunnelling and fistulae wounds; wounds left to heal by secondary intent; and wounds that are prone to bleeding such as wounds that have been surgically or mechanically debrided.

How often does DURAFIBER Ag need to be changed?

DURAFIBER Ag can remain in place for up to 7 days as its high absorbent capacity helps to provide effective fluid management. Alternatively, it should be changed when clinically indicated, e.g., if excessive exudate is present or leakage.

What sizes is DURAFIBER Ag available in?

DURAFIBER is available in the following sizes - a) square: 5x5cm, 10x10cm, 15x15cm, b) rectangular: 20x30cm 4x10cm, 4x20cm, 4x30cm and c) ribbon: 2x45cm

How is DURAFIBER Ag sterilised?

DURAFIBER is gamma irradiated.

How is DURAFIBER Ag packaged?

DURAFIBER is packed in foil

What benefits does DURAFIBER Ag offer compared to Aquacel Ag**?

Compared to standard Aquacel Ag, DURAFIBER Ag has also been designed to offer over three and a half times better wet strength - gelled strength is important for facilitating easy one piece dressing removal, over 17% better absorbency - dressing absorbency is important for ensuring effective fluid management and 43% less dressing shrinkage - minimal shrinkage is key to achieving sustained wound bed coverage

What information is there showing the performance (in vitro) of the product versus Aquacel Ag**?

The physical properties of DURAFIBER Ag and standard Aquacel Ag have been compared (in vitro) by Smith & Nephew. The results clearly show the two dressings to have similar performance characteristics, regardless of the differences in the chemical modification process. These results also show DURAFIBER Ag to have better wet strength, greater absorbency and reduced dressing shrinkage compared to standard Aquacel Ag. DURAFIBER Ag has equivalent antimicrobial performance to Aquacel Ag

What type of silver does DURAFIBER Ag Contain?

Silver chloride is present in the dressing, which disintegrates into silver ions that are released into the wound.

 

 

References

1 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.056 R1 05 2010 DURAFIBER Dressing Physical Properties.

2 DS.11.187.DOF Testing Performed as Part of DURAFIBER Photo Shoot.

3 Case Series Evaluation: The Use of DURAFIBER on Exuding Wounds. Wounds UK 2012,Vol 8, No 3.

4 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R1, DURAFIBER Ag Dressing Physical Properties, Dowler A, September 2010.

5 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on File Report Reference OR- DOF/28, A prospective, open, multicentre study to evaluate a new fibrous silver dressing in the treatment of moderate to highly exuding chronic wounds, Rafiq G, Fenton S January 2013.

6 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/093/DOF, Integrity Testing of DURAFIBER Ag in horse serum and ionic solution, Dowler A, April 2012.

7 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Data on File 10.040.01 April 2010 Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER dressing using confocal microscopy.

8 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.042 R1 Report of testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER versus AquacelTM and Kaltostat TM dressings.

9 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/109/DOF, Testing on Absorption of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag during compression, Dowler A, April 2012.

10 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/158/DOF, Sequestration Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and SorbsanTM Silver Flat, Dowler A,June 2012.

11 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/108/DOF, Testing on lateral wicking of DURAFIBER Ag versus Aquacel Ag and MaxorbTM Extra Ag dressings, Dowler A, April 2012.

12 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report, The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate, Report Reference RR-WMP06290-40-01, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

13 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1208007, Visual demonstration of sequestration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in a DURAFIBER Ag dressing using confocal microscopy. Lumb H, August 2012.

14 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004007, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

15 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009012, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 7 day period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

16 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1004009, Assessment of the contact kill activity of DURAFIBER Ag against common wound pathogens, Woodmansey E, April 2010.

17 Smith & Nephew Wound Management, Data on file report reference 1009013, Antimicrobial activity of DURAFIBER Ag against bacteria, yeast and fungi commonly found in wounds over a 4 hour period, Vaughan KL, McMillan J, Lumb H and Woodmansey E, September 2010.

18 World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) Principles of best practice. Wound exudate and the role of dressings. A consensus document London MED Ltd. 2007.

19 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/12/143/DOF, Intimate Contact Testing of DURAFIBER Ag, Aquacel Ag and Sorbsan Silver Flat, Dowler A, June 2012.

20 Smith & Nephew Research Centre Review Report RR WMP06290-40-01 The potential for proliferation of bacteria in wound exudate.

21 The Clinical and Physical Properties of DURAFIBER Ag, the Moist Wound Environment and the Autolytic Debridement, Myers D, July 2012.

22 Smith & Nephew Report DS.10.013 R1 02 2010 Aquacel Dressing Physical Properties.

23 Smith & Nephew Wound Management Laboratory Report Reference DS/10/060/R2, Aquacel Ag Dressing Physical Properties.

24 NHS Drug Tariff August 2012 http://www.ppa.org.uk/ppa/edit_intro.htm

25 Unit costs of health and social care, Curtis, L. PSSRU: 2010.

26 Siddiqui AR, Bernstein JM (2010).

27 DURAFIBER Technology video

28 Smith & Nephew Report DS/12/314 R December 2012 Wound Model Testing of DURAFIBER with various secondary dressings

29 DURAFIBER SMTL report 3303 Wound Dressing Testing

30 Smith & Nephew Report Development Services, Analytical Report Reference DS/10/053/R1, Wound Model Testing of DURFAIBER Ag and Aquacel Ag dressings with various secondary dressings, Dowler A, August 2010.

*In comparison with standard Aquacel dressings, excludes Aquacel Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Extra

**In comparison with standard Aquacel Ag dressings, excludes Aquacel Ag Ribbon with strengthening fibre and Aquacel Ag Extra

Aquacel is a trademark of Convatec

TM All trademarks acknowledged

References relate to in vitro testing excluding references 3,5,18,21,24,25,26