An innovative, highly conformable, mesh-free healing matrix dressing: results of a clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate the performance and local tolerance of an innovative mesh-free contact layer (healing matrix) made of lipidocolloid technology (TLC) in the management of various wounds. This dressing is made highly flexible by the absence of textile mesh in its core. METHOD: A four-week, prospective, multicentre clinical trial was conducted on the evaluated dressing (UrgoFit, Laboratoires Urgo, France) in 23 centres in France. Eligible patients were adults with a cutaneous wound of acute or chronic origin or due to epidermolysis bullosa (EB) in the granulation stage. The primary endpoint was the relative wound area reduction (RWAR) at week 4. Secondary endpoints included wound closure rate and time-to-heal, as well as dressing change frequency, pain at dressing removal, local tolerance and acceptability of the dressing. RESULTS: A total of 78 adult patients (23-95 years old) were treated with the dressing over a period of 24±8 days. Wound aetiologies included: postoperative or traumatic finger wounds; skin graft donor sites; dermabrasions/skin tears; burns; leg ulcers (LUs) of predominantly venous origin; a stage 3 pressure injury; and EB lesions. The median RWAR at week 4 was 98.2% (ranging between 61.5-100.0%, depending on wound types). Complete closure was achieved in 49% of patients (59% in acute wounds, 60% in EB lesions and 16% in chronic wounds) with a median time-to-heal of 16.5 days (ranging between 14.5-27.0 days, depending on wound types). Half of LUs reached a RWAR ≥40% at week 4, a predictive indicator of complete wound healing at week 24. Dressings were changed every 2±1 days on average (and left in place for a maximum of 10 days). Since the first application, the dressing was judged by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to be 'very easy' or 'easy' to apply on 96% of wounds, with a 'very good' or 'good' conformability to 94% of wound beds. Similar results were reported in cases of finger/hand wounds. Since the first week of treatment, the dressing removal was also judged 'very easy' or 'easy' in 95-98% of the cases, protecting and preserving newly formed tissue in 100% of cases. At the first follow-up visit, patients reported the dressing changes to be painless in 95% of cases. This represented a significant improvement over the previous dressings they received (p<0.0001). In all, seven non-serious adverse events related to the dressing were reported during the study period. CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, the innovative mesh-free TLC dressing was shown to promote wound healing, to be well tolerated and well accepted by patients and HCPs, in line with the evidence available on other TLC dressings; however, its enhanced conformability may provide an additional benefit for the management of wounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".