poi_mhc poi
Skip to Main Content
hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2

Why choose Mepilex Border Comfort

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.  1   2 

hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2

hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2
Introducing proprietary Flex Technology

We’re always working to deliver innovative solutions, and cutting-edge Flex Technology is the latest among them. This proprietary technology enables the 360° stretch in Mepilex Border Comfort, thanks to patent-pending Y-cuts in the retention and spreading layers. 

Unique Flex Technology = 360o Flexibility

Thanks to Flex Technology, the unique conformability of Mepilex Border Comfort allows it to adapt to the shape and movement of the patient.  3  Reducing pressure on the skin and pull on the borders increases comfort and minimizes the risk of detachment.  6 

Find out more

hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2

'References'

  1. Nelson, D. A New Bordered Foam Dressing Technology Improves Wound Outcomes and Satisfaction While Reducing Dressing Utilization in Acute Care. Poster Presentation at WOCN Annual Meeting, Nashville, 2019.
  2. Tyson, LP. Study First: Driving the Case for Improving Hospital Wound Care. Poster Presentation at SAWC 2019, San Antonio, TX.
  3. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on File. 2019. Products tested: Mepilex® Border Flex, Biatain® Silicone, Urgotul® Absorb Border, Aquacel® Foam Pro, Aquacel® Foam, Allevyn™ Life, Optifoam® Gentle Liquitrap, Kliniderm® Foam Silicone Border, Vitri Sitag® Border, Kerrafoam® Gentle
  4. Product Manual – Fluid Handling capacity PD-527642. Data on file
  5. White R. A multinational survey of the assessment of pain when removing dressings. Wounds UK 2008; 4(1):14-22.
  6. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on File. 2018. (c)
  7. Product Manual – Viscous fluid PD-528871. Data on file
  8. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on File. 2018. (h)
  9. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on file. 2018. (a)
  10. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on file. 2018. (b)
  11. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on file. 2019. (a)
  12. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on file. 2019. (c)
  13. Mölnlycke Health Care. Data on file. 2018. (i)
  14. White, R. A multinational survey of the assessment of pain when removing dressings. Wounds UK 2008;4:14-22. Available from: http://www.wounds-uk.com/journal-articles/a-multinational-survey-of-the-assessment-of-pain-when-removing-dressings-1 [Accessed 4 February 2019]. Mepilex Border (and other dressings with Safetac) vs. dressings with traditional adhesives (adhesive foams, hydrocolloids etc.)
  15. Woo K, Coutts P.M., Price P, Harding K, Sibbald R.G. A randomised crossover investigation of pain at dressing change comparing 2 foam dressings Advances in Skin and Wound Care 2009;22(7):304-310.
  16. 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.
Contact us