Background/Objectives: Hydrocolloid dressings are commonly used in the treatment of chronic wounds by forming a gel-like protective layer upon the dispersion of water, absorbing exudate, and creating a moist environment that promotes healing. However, the use of hydrocolloids has expanded outside of wound care, and this review summarizes the evidence for their use within dermatology. Methods: To perform this narrative review, several databases were searched for manuscripts that described the use of hydrocolloid dressings within dermatology. Results: The hydrophilic and colloidal dispersion properties of hydrocolloid dressings facilitate the formation of an absorptive, hydrating, and protective layer. In addition, the viscous layer supports innate immunity by activating immune cells such as granulocytes and monocytes, making them effective in wound care. Hydrocolloid dressings appear to be an effective treatment in acute wounds, with the potential of reduced healing time and easier application compared to traditional dressings. The majority of the related research suggests that hydrocolloid dressings and standard dressings have similar efficacy in healing pressure ulcers, and the prevention of hypertrophic and keloid scars. Early reports suggest that hydrocolloid dressings have a role in the treatment of facial dermatitis and acne vulgaris. Conclusions: Hydrocolloid dressings have been studied most extensively for chronic wounds and then for use in acute wounds. There have been a few studies on their use for treating acne, facial atopic dermatitis, and hypertrophic scarring. While more clinical studies are needed, there appears to be early evidence of hydrocolloid dressing use within dermatology.

Background: Acne vulgaris is a chronic inflammatory condition, which is estimated to affect greater than 85% of the population. Acne is a multifactorial condition, which can be influenced by diet, environment, and the microbiome. Aims: The purpose of this clinical study is to assess the safety and effects of a prebiotic‐containing gel cream on the skin microbiome of individuals with non‐cystic acne‐prone skin. Patients/Methods: In this 7‐week clinical trial, 30 eligible participants were recruited and enrolled from the Sacramento region. The study consisted of three visits: (1) screening; (2) week 0, baseline; (3) week 6. All participants received a standard non‐comedogenic cleanser and a prebiotic‐containing gel cream. The primary endpoint in this study was alteration in C . acnes abundance in mild to moderate non‐cystic, acne‐prone skin. The secondary endpoint in this study was functional gene analysis for skin barrier and skin inflammation‐related genes from whole genome sequencing of the skin microbiome. Results: Acne lesions significantly reduced in non‐inflammatory lesions, inflammatory lesions, and total lesions after treatment (−36.0%, −34.5%, and −35.9%, respectively). On the glabella, there was a 12.5 log2 fold increase in abundance of a healthy strain of C. acnes that is not associated with acne vulgaris. Furthermore, there was a wide range of functional bacterial genetic changes that may be associated with increased collagen and glutathione production. The gel cream was rated very well tolerated, and there were no adverse effects reported. Conclusions: This prebiotic‐containing gel cream can be an effective form of management for acne vulgaris by creating beneficial shifts in the skin microbiome.