Chronic wounds pose a global challenge by increasing patient morbidity and healthcare costs. Collagen‐based dressings, a key category for treating recalcitrant wounds, offer multiple advantages; however, comparative data on their benefits are sparse. A synthetic non‐bioactive control (NB‐Ctrl), four collagen‐based wound dressings, and a bioactive synthetic dressing were examined representing key dressing categories across the United States (US) and European Union (EU) markets. The non‐bioactive control was selected for its lack of biological activity. The collagen dressings included a 100% bovine type I collagen dressing (B‐Col), a collagen–oxidized regenerated cellulose dressing (Col‐ORC), its antimicrobial counterpart (Col‐ORC‐Ag), and a collagen–alginate–cellulose composite (Col). TLC‐NOSF‐CL, a bioactive synthetic dressing widely used in Europe, was also analyzed. Dressings were characterized using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, computer tomography scanning, and tensile tests, focusing on moisture balance, absorption, flexibility, and conformability. Higher porosity correlates with significantly higher swelling ratio and moisture‐vapor transmission rate. All collagen‐based dressings exhibit increased elasticity when wet and under flow‐induced shear stress, aiding conformity to irregular wound beds. These findings reveal performance differences not evident from manufacturer data. Providing clinicians with comparative mechanical data may support cost‐effective evidence‐based decisions, and more tailored wound care.
Verdolino et al. (2026) studied this question.