Effectiveness of No-Sting skin protectant and Aquaphor on water loss and skin integrity in premature infants

Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Nursing, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Journal of perinatology: official journal of the California Perinatal Association (Impact Factor: 2.07). 11/2009; 30(6):414-9. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2009.174
Source: PubMed


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of No-Sting skin protectant and Aquaphor, a water-based emollient, on skin integrity measured by Neonatal Skin Condition Score (NSCS) and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in premature infants. In addition, with no data regarding the use of No-Sting in the neonatal population and its desirability because it requires less infant manipulation and less nursing time, it was important to evaluate the use of this product.
In all, 69 premature infants born at <33 weeks gestation were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups: (1) No-Sting or (2) Aquaphor for a total of 14 days.
Gestational age and total fluid intake were related to NSCS whereas gestational age, incubator humidity levels and total daily fluid intake were significantly related to TEWL. Infants receiving Aquaphor had significantly higher NSCS, but the mean scores in both groups over the 14-day period were in the normal range (<4). There were no differences between Aquaphor and No-Sting in the rate of TEWL over the 14-day period.
This study provides the first information regarding the use of No-Sting in the neonatal population. This skin protectant seems as effective as Aquaphor in decreasing TEWL and maintaining skin integrity, and is less resource intensive.

Download full-text


Available from: Diane Hudson-Barr, Oct 03, 2015
1 Follower
153 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Infant skin is different from adult in structure, function, and composition. Despite these differences, the skin barrier is competent at birth in healthy, full-term neonates. The primary focus of this paper is on the developing skin barrier in healthy, full-term neonates and infants. Additionally, a brief discussion of the properties of the skin barrier in premature neonates and infants with abnormal skin conditions (i.e., atopic dermatitis and eczema) is included. As infant skin continues to mature through the first years of life, it is important that skin care products (e.g., cleansers and emollients) are formulated appropriately. Ideally, products that are used on infants should not interfere with skin surface pH or perturb the skin barrier. For cleansers, this can be achieved by choosing the right type of surfactant, by blending surfactants, or by blending hydrophobically-modified polymers (HMPs) with surfactants to increase product mildness. Similarly, choosing the right type of oil for emollients is important. Unlike some vegetable oils, mineral oil is more stable and is not subject to oxidation and hydrolysis. Although emollients can improve the skin barrier, more studies are needed to determine the potential long-term benefits of using emollients on healthy, full-term neonates and infants.
    Dermatology Research and Practice 09/2012; 2012(1, part 1):198789. DOI:10.1155/2012/198789
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Skin injury related to medical adhesive usage is a prevalent but underrecognized complication that occurs across all care settings and among all age groups. If proper technique for application and/or removal of adhesive products is not used, tissue trauma can occur, impacting patient safety and quality of life and increasing healthcare costs. Little guidance exists in the literature regarding appropriate selection and proper use of adhesive products to minimize medical adhesive–related skin injury, as well as best practices for skin care preventive strategies, application and removal techniques, and assessment and treatment of such injuries. In an effort to define best practices for prevention of such injury, a consensus panel of 23 recognized key opinion leaders convened to establish consensus statements on the assessment, prevention, and treatment of medical adhesive–related skin injury. The consensus summit was held in December 2012 and was made possible by an unrestricted educational grant from 3M. This document details the consensus definitions and statements and identifies research priorities for development of new adhesive technologies and protocols for skin protection.
    Journal of the Dermatology Nurses' Association 01/2013; 5(6):323-338. DOI:10.1097/JDN.0000000000000009
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To examine the hypothesis that the use of a wash product formulated for newborn (<1 month of age) bathing is not inferior (no worse) to bathing with water only. DESIGN: Assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial. SETTING: A teaching hospital in the Northwest of England and in participants' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Three-hundred-and-seven healthy, term infants recruited within 48 hours of birth. METHOD: We compared bathing with a wash product (n = 159) to bathing with water alone (n = 148). The primary outcome was transepidermal water loss (TEWL) at 14 days postbirth; the predefined difference deemed to be unimportant was 1.2. Secondary outcomes comprised changes in stratum corneum hydration, skin surface pH, clinical observations of the skin, and maternal views. RESULTS: Complete TEWL data were obtained for 242 (78.8%) infants. Wash was noninferior to water alone in terms of TEWL (intention-to-treat analysis: 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference [wash-water, adjusted for family history of eczema, neonate state, and baseline] -1.24, 1.07; per protocol analysis: 95% CI -1.42, 1.09). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: We were unable to detect any differences between the newborn wash product and water. These findings provide reassurance to parents who choose to use the test newborn wash product or other technically equivalent cleansers and provide the evidence for health care professionals to support parental choice.
    Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing 02/2013; 42(2). DOI:10.1111/1552-6909.12015 · 1.02 Impact Factor
Show more