|
Read all 4 Reviews
|
Write a Review
|
|
About the Author
Member: Mike
Location: Olathe, KS USA
Reviews written: 279
Trusted by: 281 members
About Me: Every day's a holiday!
|
"Dermabond": Think Twice if Your Hospital or Doc Wants to Stick It to You!
Written: Nov 08 '07 (Updated Jul 31 '08)
- User Rating: Disappointing
-
Effectiveness:
Pros:Nice-and-tidy concept. I surmise that in some instances (or body areas) it might even work.
Cons:On "vulnerable" (and/or sweaty) body areas, it likely won't adhere long or completely.
The Bottom Line: Don't trust Dermabond to fully adhere to (protect) areas (e.g., feet and hands) that are continually subject to inescapable, ordinary stress or sweat. "Old-fashioned" approaches (read review) could work better.
UPDATE: My rating of this product is based on MY sole (no pun intended) experience with it and doesn't reflect the fact that Dermabond could admittedly have its proper uses. So, please read all the words of my original review, plus see my (boldface) postscript to (at the end of) this review!
***
Last summer, on a Saturday afternoon inside my house, I rather badly cut my foot (due to a freakish stumble involving a metal step stool). The wound was on the upper part of the foot, between the largest and the adjacent toe. It looked to be a borderline call as to whether it would need stitches.
At the nearby hospital's ER, a rather young lady (after cleaning my wound and finally deciding it could heal without stitches) applied some of this "Dermabond" compound. I initially trusted she was correct regarding its touted efficacy.
Arriving home a short time later, I noticed that yet another fresh white sock was very bloody. I soon discovered that the initially seemingly tight Dermabond application hadn't long retained a complete seal; in fact, it had already become somewhat "loose at the edges" at several points. Phoning the ER people, my concern was basically just pooh-poohed. I was told that my wound would heal all right, even without any antibiotic applications or pills of any sort ("Your own immune system will fight any 'bugs', sir!"), and, bottom line, not to worry about the Dermabond application ("Just leave it alone."), yadda yadda.
Well, among other standard, "canned" advice, the ER people had told me to see my regular physician within three days. Right. Given that the Dermabond application was getting looser by the hour while the wound was, of course, far from healed, I saw my regular doc the following Tuesday morn. He agreed I could just remove the barely still adhering Dermabond then and there. (The Dermabond was, by then, an almost totally loose "flap" largely exposing the wound to further damage, dirt and germs!)
Then my doc just liberally applied some ordinary antibiotic ointment and tightly wrapped the wound with a lengthy amount of self-adhering ("sticks-to-itself-but-not-to-your-skin") cloth bandage, which, two or three days later, I chose to remove to let the wound's edges finally begin the protracted process of air-drying. [Note: Beyond the first two or three days of the healing process, I've never had much success with small wounds fully healing while being tightly enclosed by any bandage; tight bandages generally kept such wounds--at least mine--too moist to heal completely. By contrast, simple air-drying--such that a hard, protective scab could form--has generally been much more effective, at least for me. But I gather that the medical community doesn't unanimously endorse my opinion about that, so please do listen to your doctor's advice!]
Also note that my doc additionally prescribed some typical antibiotic capsules that I took for several days thereafter; however, I'm uncertain as to whether that "oral" antibiotic was actually necessary (or advisable) in that instance. (As you've likely heard, such antibiotics are, arguably, commonly overused.)
Within two weeks, that unusually stubborn wound's edges had finally fully closed to such an extent that they were no longer unduly subject to re-injury, and that vexing little chapter of my life was itself largely closed (other than the subsequent, outrageously hefty bill for the ER's pathetic "treatment", etc.).
I suppose there must be certain types of wounds (on less continually stressed parts of the body) where Dermabond could adhere at least long (and firmly) enough to be really helpful. But I myself was underwhelmed, to say the least. If the ER people had merely done from the get-go what my regular doctor subsequently did (with some antibiotic ointment and the above-described wrap), I would have been better off. The wound could have remained less exposed and much cleaner.
Dermabond is a nice-and-tidy "concept" that is, unfortunately, evidently overused by some hospitals' ER's, etc. Don't necessarily trust it for wounds on those parts of the body (such as feet and hands) that are bound to be continually subject to inescapable, ordinary stress or sweating.
P.S.: Subsequent experiences using an OTC product doubly convinced me that certain "merely" "adhesive" products including, I assume, Dermabond itself can indeed be admirably effective for certain purposes. I allude to a product called "New Skin Antiseptic Liquid Bandage," which I subsequently reviewed (on March 20th 2008). Here's a link to that review: "New-Skin" let me regenerate new skin!
Recommended: No
Amount Paid (US$): ?
Read all 4 Reviews
|
Write a Review
|
|
|
|