A Comparison of the Biomechanical Protection Provided by 2 Cyanoacrylate-Based Skin Protectants
A Comparison of the Biomechanical Protection Provided by 2 Cyanoacrylate-Based Skin Protectants
复制标题
两种氰基丙烯酸酯皮肤保护剂提供的生物力学保护的比较
DOI：
10.1097/won.0000000000000618
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Gibson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jiye Lee;D. Gibson
补充数字内容可在正文中找到。目的：本研究的目的是评价两种护肤品的凝胶内张力和减少撕裂的作用，这两种护肤品以液体的形式涂抹，并在干燥时留下保护层。设计：采用体外模型的前瞻性3组比较队列研究。方法：在定制的装置中使用易碎的琼脂基凝胶和嵌入的珠子，分别施加550,1080和1600帕的可变界面压力。然后，该装置以0.625毫米为增量施加216N的外部剪切力。凝胶中产生的应变通过数字图像相关来测量。撕裂时的应变是通过观察凝胶的图像并计算该点的应变来确定的。这一方法被用来比较未经处理的凝胶和使用两种市售氰基丙烯酸酯护肤剂之一处理的凝胶。首先对3组的结果进行方差分析，然后根据需要进行Tukey‘s诚实显著性差异检验。结果：我们观察到界面压力和应变的比例增加，这在3组之间是不同的。在1080pA载荷(−15%，P=3.64×10−4)和1600pA载荷(−20%，P=0.03)下，经混合聚合物护肤剂处理的凝胶的预撕裂应变均小于对照凝胶。经氰基丙烯酸酯处理的凝胶在1080Pa(−34%，P=4.25×10−7)和1600Pa(−48%，P=1.07×10−7)下的应变小于对照组，在1080Pa(−19%，P=5.38×10−6)和1600Pa(−28%，P=3.88×10−3)下的应变也小于混合聚合物产品。在抗撕裂方面，在界面压力为1080Pa时，对照凝胶撕裂80%，混合聚合物处理凝胶撕裂100%，单纯氰基丙烯酸酯处理凝胶不撕裂(0/5，P=8.84×10−5)。在1600Pa.压力下，对照和混合聚合物处理的凝胶100%撕裂，而氰基丙烯酸酯处理的凝胶无一发生撕裂(P=2.54×10−24)。结论：以氰基丙烯酸酯为基础的纯皮肤保护剂提供了最大的保护作用，在应变和撕裂方面都有一致的减少。两种护肤剂都降低了最初的凝胶内应变；然而，在测试的条件下，只有纯氰基丙烯酸酯处理的产品保护凝胶免受撕裂。这些结果表明，氰基丙烯酸酯类皮肤保护剂可以减少脆性弹性材料的剪切应变和撕裂。
Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in-gel strain and tear reduction provided by 2 skin protectant products that were applied as a liquid and allowed to dry, leaving behind a protective layer. DESIGN: Prospective, 3-group comparison cohort study using an in vitro model. METHODS: A fragile agar-based gel with an embedded bead was used in a custom device that applied variable interface pressures of 550, 1080, or 1600 Pa, respectively. The device then imparted 216 N of external shear force in 0.625-mm increments. The resulting strain in the gel was measured by digital image correlation. The strain at tearing was determined by observing the images of the gels and calculating the strain at that point. This approach was used to compare untreated gels to gels treated with one of 2 commercially available cyanoacrylate-based skin protectants. The results from the 3 groups were first analyzed by analysis of variance, followed by Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test when indicated. RESULTS: We observed a proportional increase in interface pressure and strain that differed among the 3 groups. Specifically, the gels treated with a mixed polymer skin protectant had less pretearing strain than the control gel at both the 1080-Pa load (−15%, P = 3.64 × 10−4) and 1600 Pa-load (−20%, P = .03). The pure cyanoacrylate-treated gels had less strain than the control at 1080 Pa (−34%, P = 4.25 × 10−7) and 1600 Pa (−48%, P = 1.07 × 10−7); it also had less strain than the mixed polymer product at 1080 Pa (−19%, P = 5.38 × 10−6) and 1600 Pa (−28%, P = 3.88 × 10−3). In terms of protection from tearing, at an interface pressure of 1080 Pa, the control gel tore 80% of the time, the mixed polymer-treated gel tore 100% of the time, and the pure cyanoacrylate-treated gel did not tear (0/5, P = 8.84 × 10−5). Under a load of 1600 Pa, 100% of the control and mixed polymer-treated gels tore while none of the cyanoacrylate-treated gels did (P = 2.54 × 10−24). CONCLUSION: The pure cyanoacrylate-based skin protectant provided the most protection, with consistent reductions in both strain and tearing. Both skin protectants reduced the initial in-gel strain; however, only the pure cyanoacrylate-treated product protected the gel from tears under the conditions tested. These results indicate that cyanoacrylate-based skin protectants can reduce shear strain and tearing in fragile elastic materials.