ArticleInternational wound journal2022
Fluid management and strength postsimulated use of primary and secondary dressings for treating diabetic foot ulcers: Robotic phantom studies.
Article in International wound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical advances in robotic retinal surgery: a systematic review and future research directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Mechanical and contact characteristics of foam materials within wound dressings: Theoretical and practical considerations in treatment.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Fluid handling performance of wound dressings tested in a robotic venous leg ulcer system under compression therapy.International wound journal · 2023Article
- The performance of gelling fibre wound dressings under clinically relevant robotic laboratory tests.International wound journal · 2022Review
- Fluid management and strength postsimulated use of primary and secondary dressings for treating diabetic foot ulcers: Robotic phantom studies.International wound journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Non-offloaded diabetic heel ulcers and the wound dressings used to treat them may be subjected to considerable bodyweight forces. A novel robotic foot phantom with a diabetic heel ulcer was designed and constructed to test the combined performances of applied primary and secondary dressings, in simulated non-offloaded (standing) and offloaded (supine) postures. We specifically compared the performances of the primary Exufiber dressing (Mölnlycke Health Care) combined with the secondary Mepilex Border Flex dressing (Mölnlycke) against a corresponding pair from an alternative manufacturer. Fluid retention and distribution between the primary and secondary dressings of each pair were determined using weight tests, and mechanical strength of the primary dressings was further measured postsimulated use through tensile testing. The Exufiber and Mepilex Border Flex pair performed similarly in the two simulated postures (retention = ~97%), whereas the comparator pair exhibited a 13%-decrease in retention for a supine to standing transition. Furthermore, the Exufiber dressing delivered up to 2-times more fluid to its paired secondary dressing and endured 1.7-times greater strain energy than the corresponding primary dressing before failure occurred. The present robotic foot phantom and associated methods are versatile and suitable for testing any dressing, in consideration of the relevant clinical factors and practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.