Effect of using normal saline, alcohol and acetone on pain during removal of polyacrylate adhesive dressings in children aged 10–15 years: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background
Removing wound dressings containing polyacrylate adhesives can cause pain, especially in pediatric patients with more sensitive skin and lower pain thresholds. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of normal saline, alcohol, and acetone on pain during dressing removal in children and evaluate their associated side effects.
Methods
The study used a pilot randomized controlled trial involving 16 children aged 10-15 years at the Surgical Clinic of Dr. Saiful Anwar Regional General Hospital, Malang. Pain levels were measured using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale, while side effects were assessed using the Skin Irritation Score and Itchyquant Score. The children's pain was assessed 1 min after the procedure. Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's post hoc test were used for data analysis.
Results
The results demonstrated that acetone was significantly more effective than normal saline and alcohol in reducing pain during dressing removal (p<0.050). Normal saline and alcohol did not show significant differences compared to the control group, likely due to their limited ability to dissolve the polyacrylate adhesive. Mild irritation and temporary pruritus occurred in all groups, with acetone producing the least reaction. Acetone's effectiveness is attributed to its ability to disrupt van der Waals forces and polymer bonds within the adhesive, thereby reducing the force required for removal.
Conclusions
Acetone is the most effective agent for reducing pain during dressing removal, with minimal side effects compared to other solvents. Further research is necessary to determine optimal formulations and assess the stability of acetone for the development of acetone swab products.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal allows the authors to hold the copyright without restrictions and allow the authors to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
How to Cite
References
1. Wilkinson HN, Hardman MJ. Wound healing: cellular mechanisms and pathological outcomes. Open Biol 2020;10:200223. doi: 10.1098/rsob.200223.
2. Singh S, Young A, McNaught CE. The physiology of wound healing. Surgery (Oxford) 2017;35:473-7. doi: 10.1016/j.mpsur.2017.06.004.
3. Vitale S, Colanero S, Placidi M, et al. Phytochemistry and biological activity of medicinal plants in wound healing: an overview of current research. Molecules. 2022;27:3566. doi: 10.3390/molecules27113566.
4. Jiang C, Zhang X, Zhang X, Li X, Xu S, Li Y. Integrating bioinspired natural adhesion mechanisms into modified polyacrylate latex pressure-sensitive adhesives. Polymers 2024;16:2404. doi: 10.3390/polym16172404.
5. Rezvani Ghomi E, Khalili S, Nouri Khorasani S, Esmaeely Neisiany R, Ramakrishna S. Wound dressings: current advances and future directions. J Appl Polym Sci 2019;136:47738. doi: 10.1002/app.47738.
6. Fumarola S, Allaway R, Callaghan R, et al. Overlooked and underestimated: medical adhesive-related skin injuries. J Wound Care 2020;29(Sup3c):S1-24. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.Sup3c.S.
7. Kim MJ, Jang JM, Kim HK, Heo HJ, Jeong IS. Medical adhesives-related skin injury in a pediatric intensive care unit: a single-center observational study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2019;46:491-6. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000592.
8. Chawada MJ, Hajgude V. Efficacy of cyanoacrylate glue in operative wound closure. Int Surg J 2016;3:792-6. doi: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20160659.
9. Van Schaik R, Rovekamp MH. Fact or myth? Pain reduction in solvent-assisted removal of adhesive tape. J Wound Care 2011;20:380-3.
10. Chottanapund S, Chiramanapun T, Chinaroonchai K, Sirikun J, Roeksomtawin S, Muangman P. Determination of efficacy of adhesive remover with orange oil extract solution. J Med Assoc Thai 2017;100:S145-9.
11. In J. Introduction of a pilot study. Korean J Anesthesiol 2017;70:601-5. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2017.70.6.601.
12. Walker BJ, Polaner DM, Berde CB. Acute pain. In: Coté CJ, Lerman J, Anderson BJ, editors. A practice of anesthesia for infants and children. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019.p.1023-62.
13. Sreejayan N, Marone PA, Lau FC, Yasmin T, Bagchi M, Bagchi D. Safety and toxicological evaluation of a novel chromium(III) dinicocysteinate complex. Toxicol Mech Methods 2010;20:321-33. doi: 10.3109/15376516.2010.487880.
14. Haydek CG, Love E, Mollanazar NK, et al. Validation and banding of the ItchyQuant: a self-report itch severity scale. J Invest Dermatol 2017;137:57-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.06.633.
15. Horst RJ, Brió Pérez M, Cohen R, et al. Swelling of poly (methyl acrylate) brushes in acetone vapor. Langmuir 2020;36:12053-60. doi: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.0c02510.
16. Jiang C, Zhang X, Zhang X, Li X, Xu S, Li Y. Integrating bioinspired natural adhesion mechanisms into modified polyacrylate latex pressure-sensitive adhesives. Polymers (Basel) 2024;16:2404. doi: 10.3390/polym16172404.
17. Ahluwalia J, Drury E, Haupert M. Removal of cyanoacrylate glue from the external auditory canal with hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid: a case report. Cureus 2024;16:e57213. doi: 10.7759/cureus.57213.
18. [18] Sekar SC, Srinivas CR. Comparative efficacy of soap water, spirit, acetone and ether in removing the adherent material formed during and after removal of micropore tape. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2008;74:391-2. doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.42914.
19. Czech ZR. Pressure-sensitive acrylic adhesives (PSAs): how it began and the present state of art. ChemTexts 2024;10:6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-024-00189-w.
20. Wilpiszewska K, Czech Z. Water-soluble pressure-sensitive adhesives containing carboxymethyl starch with improved adhesion to paper. J Polym Environ 2018;26:1453-8. doi: 10.1007/s10924-017-1048-8.
21. Di Lorenzo L, Bordignon S, Chierotti MR, Alfeo IA, Antosik AK, Brunella V. Advancing sustainability: geraniol-enhanced waterborne acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesives without chemical modification. Materials 2024;17:4957. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17204957.
22. Muñoz-Viñas S, Sobrino-Estalrich M. On the reversibility of spray adhesives in paper conservation. Restaur 2024;45:49-67. https://doi.org/10.1515/res-2024-0002.
23. Tomczak D, Kuczko W, Nowicka AB, et al. Evaluation of the effect of ethanol on the properties of acrylic-urethane samples processed by vat photopolymerization. Appl Sci 2024;14:5875. doi: 10.3390/app14135875.
24. Yosipovitch G, Misery L, Proksch E, Metz M, Ständer S, Schmelz M. Skin barrier damage and itch: review of mechanisms, topical management and future directions. Acta Derm Venereol 2019;99:1201-9. doi: 10.2340/00015555-3296.