Leukomed® is a range of sterile wound dressings designed for postoperative care, wound protection, and fixation. It is produced by BSN medical and is widely used in hospitals and outpatient care.
| Condition | Recommended Product |
|---|---|
| Dry, clean wounds | Leukomed T |
| Wounds with moderate exudate | Leukomed or Leukomed T Plus |
| Fragile or sensitive skin | Leukomed Skin Sensitive |
| Need for waterproof protection | Leukomed T or T Plus |
Leukomed® dressings are used in neurosurgical practice primarily for wound protection, exudate management, and infection prevention. Selection depends on surgical site, exudate level, and risk of contamination.
| Indication | Leukomed® Type | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Craniotomy wounds | Leukomed® T Plus / Control | Transparent variant allows monitoring of healing and exudate without removal. |
| External ventricular drain (EVD) sites | Leukomed® T | Provides sterile, waterproof, transparent coverage to reduce infection risk. |
| Spinal surgery wounds | Leukomed® T Plus / Standard | Secure fixation and absorbent pad protect the incision; reduces mechanical trauma. |
| Stereotactic frame pin sites | Leukomed® | Localized dressing to protect puncture points post-removal. |
| Postoperative subcutaneous catheter sites (e.g., baclofen pumps) | Leukomed® T Plus | Reduces friction, waterproof, allows early detection of inflammation. |
| Shunt valve protection (VP/LP shunt) | Leukomed® Sorbact® | In high-risk or colonized skin, Sorbact® variant helps prevent bacterial growth. |
| Peripheral access (arterial line, PICC) in neurosurgical patients | Leukomed® T | Transparent, breathable coverage for secure fixation and visualization. |
In a branded Prospective observational uncontrolled post-market surveillance study Degenhardt et al. 1) studiued the performance and safety of transparent postoperative dressings with silicone adhesive in daily practice on fragile skin. There is no control group, no randomization, and no blinding. In other words, no safeguards against bias—just a clinical diary with a conflict of interest lurking behind a silicone film.
2. Sample Size: A Case Series, Not a Study
With only 42 patients across three centers, this is laughably underpowered to draw any robust conclusion, especially for a product already marketed and presumably used widely. Worse yet, 94% had surgical wounds—hardly generalizable across the wide spectrum of acute wound care. The heterogeneity of wound types is mentioned but never analyzed with statistical rigor.
3. Endpoints: Soft and Subjective
The endpoints include vague variables like:
“Patient comfort”
“Pain during removal”
“Ease of use with gloved hands”
These are inherently subjective and lack standardized assessment tools. There’s no validated pain scale, no formal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and no quantitative data on healing progression. This is low-level evidence masquerading as clinical insight.
4. Bias and Conflicts of Interest: The Silicone Elephant in the Room
Both dressings tested are made by BSN medical GmbH (Essity)—the sponsor of the product, the source of the funding, and the primary benefactor of the results. The authors fail to declare any conflict of interest statement, which in itself undermines the ethical integrity of the paper. The tone borders on marketing copy, with uncritical praise and zero mention of limitations or alternatives.
5. Results: Too Good to Be True
No erythema? No MARSI? No adverse effects at all? For a population with fragile skin and a mean age of 78, this sounds less like a clinical trial and more like an advertisement. Either the reporting was selective, the endpoints were chosen to avoid showing failures, or complications were simply ignored.
“Wound improvement in 94%”? What is the metric? What defines “improvement”? There’s no histological or photographic evidence, no blinded assessment—just a sweeping claim without data granularity.
6. Conclusion: Padded and Prebaked
The conclusion is a self-congratulatory echo chamber: the product is “effective,” “well-tolerated,” “comfortable,” “easy to apply,” and “almost pain-free.” Every box ticked. No adverse events, no statistical analysis, no caution. This kind of “evidence” is clinically useless and methodologically hollow.
🧨 FINAL VERDICT
This is not a scientific study; it is a promotional case series cloaked in clinical jargon. The lack of methodological rigor, absence of controls, tiny sample, vague endpoints, and apparent bias render it unfit to inform clinical practice or justify inclusion in evidence-based guidelines.
Impact factor padding at its worst.
Grade: đź”´ Level 5 evidence (expert opinion / uncontrolled case series)
Recommendation: Do not cite. Do not base decisions on this.