The Effect of Prophylactic Silicone Dressings on the Incidence of Pressure Injuries on Patients in the Acute Care Setting

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

PURPOSE: 

To explore the effect of silicone dressings on the prevention of pressure injuries in patients cared for in the acute care setting. Three main comparisons were explored: silicone dressing versus no dressing, all anatomical areas; silicone dressing versus no dressing on the sacrum; and silicone dressing versus no dressing on the heels.

METHODS: 

Using a systematic review methodology, published randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials were included. The search was conducted from December 2020 to January 2021 using CINAHL, full text on EBSCOhost, MEDLINE on EBSCOhost, and Cochrane databases. The search returned 130 studies; 10 met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a predesigned extraction tool. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence was appraised using a software program specifically designed for this purpose.

RESULTS: 

Silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries compared to no dressings (relative risk [RR]: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.53; moderate certainty evidence). Furthermore, silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries on the sacrum compared to no dressings (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.62; moderate certainty evidence). Finally, silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries on the heels compared to no dressings (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.62; moderate certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION: 

There is moderate certainty evidence of the effect of silicone dressings as a component of a pressure injury prevention strategy. The main limiting factor in the study designs was a high risk of performance and detection bias. Although this is a challenge to achieve in trials such as these, consideration should be given to how the effect of this could be minimized. A further issue is the lack of head-to-head trials that limits clinicians' abilities to determine whether any of the products in this category are more effective than others.