Mepilex® Border Flex Lite

Status: In Stock

CA$21.00

 

All-in-one dressing for non- to low exuding wounds that is designed to stay on and uniquely conform

Designed to stay on and uniquely conform

Innovative 360° Flex Technology allows Mepilex® Border Flex Lite to move in every direction, reducing skin stress, increasing comfort and keeping it in place1.

Our next generation of flexible dressings are designed to stay on and uniquely conform; giving time back to nurses, cost savings back to managers and quality of life back to patients.

Smart exudate management

The unique 4 layer dressing absorbs and channels exudate away from the wound bed and allows you to track exudate progress without disturbing the wound 2, 3. The construction of Mepilex® Border Flex Lite provides an optimal balance of exudate absorption and moisture vapour loss, maximising exudate management for or non- to low exuding wounds4.

Safetac® technology. Less damage. Less pain.

In numerous randomised trials, dressings with Safetac® are clinically demonstrated to minimise damage to the wound and skin at removal 5 - 11. With less damage to the wound and skin, pain at dressing change is minimised. 5 - 8, 12

  • Innovative 360° Flex Technology allows Mepilex® Border Flex Lite to move in every direction, reducing skin stress, increasing comfort and keeping it in place1
  • Up to 4 times better conformability than Mepilex® Border Lite1
  • Exudate Progress Monitor lets you objectively track and record exudate, potentially avoiding excess dressing changes4

 

More Info

More Info

Code

Size cm

Pcs/box
581011 4 x 5 cm 10
581100 5 x 12.5 cm 5
581200 7.5 x 7.5 cm 5
581300 10 x 10 cm 5
581500 15 x 15 cm 5

 

'References'

  1. Mepilex Border Flex Lite PD-570458 T-1086 Conformability test, EN 13726-4:2003. Data on file
  2. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on file. 2018. (a)
  3. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on file. 2018. (b)
  4. Product Manual – Dot Pattern, PD-570599. Data on file.
  5. Van Overschelde P, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing two wound dressings used after elective hip and knee arthroplasty. Poster presentation at the 5th Congress of WUWHS, Florence, Italy, 25-29 Sep, 2016.
  6. Silverstein P, et al. An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (intervention) vs silver sulfadiazine cream. J Burn Care Res. 2011;32(6):617-626.
  7. Gee Kee EL, et al. Randomized controlled trial of three burns dressings for partial thickness burns in children. Burns. 2015;41(5):946-955.
  8. David F. et al. A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing the performance of a soft silicone-coated wound contact layer (Mepitel One) with a lipidocolloid wound contact layer (UrgoTul) in the treatment of acute wounds. International Wound Journal, 2018.
  9. Patton ML, et al. An open, prospective, randomized pilot investigation evaluating pain with the use of a soft silicone wound contact layer vs bridal veil and staples on split thickness skin grafts as a primary dressing. J Burn Care Res. 2013;34(6):674-681.
  10. Bredow J. et al. Evaluation of Absorbent Versus Conventional Wound Dressing. A Randomized Controlled Study in Orthopedic Surgery. Deutsche Arzteblatt Intternational, 2018.
  11. Meaume S, et al. A study to compare a new self-adherent soft silicone dressing with a self-adherent polymer dressing in stage II pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003;49(9):44-51.
  12. Gotschall CS, et al. Prospective, randomized study of the efficacy of Mepitel on children with partial-thickness scalds. J Burn Care and Rehabil. 1998;19(4):279-283.

Video

Video

 

To top