Leukomed

• Performance and safety of transparent postoperative dressings with silicone adhesive in daily practice on fragile skin
• Reducing Surgical Site Infections Post-Caesarean Section
• Quality improvement evaluation of postoperative wound dressings in orthopaedic patients
• Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)-coated dressings in the management and prevention of wound infection: a systematic review
• Self-care and postoperative dressing management
• Managing surgical wound care: review of Leukomed Control dressings
• Inhibition of endothelial activation: a new way to treat cerebral malaria?

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.

• Material: Soft non-woven backing with absorbent pad.
• Use: For post-surgical wounds, cuts, and abrasions.
• Properties:
  • Absorbent wound pad (absorbs up to 12× its weight).
  • Non-adherent to the wound.
  • Radiotransparent – can be left in place during X-rays.
  • Rounded edges for secure fixation.

• Material: Polyurethane transparent film.
• Use: For superficial wounds, IV sites, and catheter fixation.
• Properties:
  • Waterproof and bacteria-proof.
  • Allows visual inspection without removal.
  • Stays in place for up to 7 days.
  • Breathable: permeable to oxygen and water vapor.

• Material: Transparent film with central absorbent island.
• Use: For exuding wounds requiring waterproof protection.
• Properties:
  • Combines absorption with film protection.
  • Showerproof and transparent for inspection.
  • Skin-friendly adhesive.

• Material: Soft silicone adhesive.
• Use: For fragile skin (e.g., elderly, infants, dermatological patients).
• Properties:
  • Pain-free removal.
  • Hypoallergenic and gentle on skin.
  • Radiotransparent.

• Leukomed®: 5×7.2 cm to 10×25 cm
• Leukomed® T: 5×7.2 cm to 10×25 cm
• Leukomed® T Plus: 8×10 cm to 10×20 cm
• Leukomed® Skin Sensitive: multiple small and medium sizes

1. Clean the wound with saline or antiseptic before application.
2. Choose a size with at least 2 cm of margin around the wound.
3. Avoid stretching the dressing during application.
4. Remove slowly in the direction of hair growth, parallel to skin.

• [https://www.bsnmedical.com Leukomed official site]
• [https://www.promofarma.com Leukomed products on PromoFarma]
• [https://www.amazon.es/s?k=leukomed Leukomed on Amazon Spain]

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.

• Transparent versions (T / Control) allow visual inspection without dressing removal
• Secure adhesion even on curved surfaces (scalp, spine)
• Sterile and breathable — reduces maceration
• Minimizes dressing change frequency — beneficial in high-infection-risk patients
• Sorbact® variant supports infection control in colonized or critical patients

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: 🔴 Level 5 evidence (expert opinion / uncontrolled case series)

Recommendation: Do not cite. Do not base decisions on this.