JAPMA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dovison, R.
Right arrow Articles by Keenan, A.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dovison, R.
Right arrow Articles by Keenan, A.-M.
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Volume 91 Number 5 230-233 2001
Copyright © 2001 American Podiatric Medical Association

Wound Healing and Infection in Nail Matrix Phenolization Wounds

Does Topical Medication Make a Difference?

Russell Dovison, BPod(Hons)* and Anne-Maree Keenan, BAppSc(Pod), MAppSc{dagger}

* Director, Bayside Podiatry Pty Ltd, Bonbeach, Victoria, Australia.
{dagger} Fellow, Australian Faculty of Public Health Medicine; Senior Lecturer, School of Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith DC, New South Wales 1797, Australia.

Abstract

After nail matrix ablation using phenolization, a medicated wound dressing (10% povidone iodine), an amorphous hydrogel dressing (Intrasite Gel), and a control dressing (paraffin gauze) were evaluated. Forty-two participants, randomly divided into three dressing groups, were evaluated. Healing time did not differ between the 10% povidone iodine (33 days), amorphous hydrogel (33 days), and the control dressing (34 days). For all groups, the clinical infection rate was lower than in previous studies, and there was no clinical difference between groups (one infection in the povidone iodine and control groups; none in the amorphous hydrogel group). However, in the amorphous hydrogel group, other complications, such as hypergranulation, were more likely. This investigation indicated that medicated or hydrogel dressings did not enhance the rate of healing or decrease infection rates. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(5): 230-233, 2001)




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
R. B. de Bengoa Vallejo, M. E. L. Iglesias, R. S. Gomez, and K. T. Jules
Gauze Application of Phenol for Matrixectomy
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, September 1, 2008; 98(5): 418 - 421.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch DermatolHome page
G. Chaby, P. Senet, M. Vaneau, P. Martel, J.-C. Guillaume, S. Meaume, L. Teot, C. Debure, A. Dompmartin, H. Bachelet, et al.
Dressings for Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review
Arch Dermatol, October 1, 2007; 143(10): 1297 - 1304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
J. Porthouse and D. J. Torgerson
The Need for Randomized Controlled Trials in Podiatric Medical Research
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, May 1, 2004; 94(3): 221 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 INT J LOW EXTREM WOUNDSHome page
T. D. Weaver, M. Vy Ton, and T. V. Pham
Ingrowing Toenails: Management Practices and Research Outcomes
International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds, March 1, 2004; 3(1): 22 - 34.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Podiatric Medical Association.