Cost-effectiveness of silver dressings for paediatric partial thickness burns: An economic evaluation from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Partial thickness burns of up to 10% total body surface area (TBSA) in children are common injuries primarily treated in the outpatient setting using expensive silver-containing dressings. However, economic evaluations in the paediatric burns population are lacking to assist healthcare providers when choosing which dressing to use. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three silver dressings for partial thickness burns ≤10% TBSA in children aged 0-15 years using days to full wound re-epithelialization as the health outcome. METHOD: This study was a trial based economic evaluation (incremental cost effectiveness) conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. Ninety-six children participated in the trial investigating Acticoat™, Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ or Mepilex Ag™. Costs directly related to the management of partial thickness burns ≤10% TBSA were collected during the trial from March 2013 to July 2014 and for a one year after re-epithelialization time horizon. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were estimated and dominance probabilities calculated from bootstrap resampling trial data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the potential effect of accounting for infrequent, but high cost, skin grafting surgical procedures. RESULTS: Costs (dressing, labour, analgesics, scar management) were considerably lower in the Mepilex Ag™ group (median AUD$94.45) compared to the Acticoat™ (median $244.90) and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ (median $196.66) interventions. There was a 99% and 97% probability that Mepilex Ag™ dominated (cheaper and more effective than) Acticoat™ and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™, respectively. This pattern of dominance was consistent across raw cost and effects, after a priori adjustments, and sensitivity analyses. There was an 82% probability that Acticoat™ with Mepitel dominated Acticoat™ in the primary analysis, although this probability was sensitive to the effect of skin graft procedures. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation has demonstrated that Mepilex Ag™ was the dominant dressing choice over both Acticoat™ and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ in this trial-based economic evaluation and is recommended for treatment of paediatric partial thickness burns ≤10% TBSA.

Scar outcome of children with partial thickness burns: A 3 and 6 month follow up.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of research investigating the scar outcome of children with partial thickness burns. The aim of this study was to assess the scar outcome of children with partial thickness burns who received a silver dressing acutely. METHOD: Children aged 0-15 years with an acute partial thickness burn, ≤10% TBSA were included. Children were originally recruited for an RCT investigating three dressings for partial thickness burns. Children were assessed at 3 and 6 months after re-epithelialization. 3D photographs were taken of the burn site, POSAS was completed and skin thickness was measured using ultrasound imaging. RESULTS: Forty-three children returned for 3 and 6 month follow-ups or returned a photo. Days to re-epithelialization was a significant predictor of skin/scar quality at 3 and 6 months (p<0.01). Patient-rated color and observer-rated vascularity and pigmentation POSAS scores were comparable at 3 months (color vs. vascularity 0.88, p<0.001; color vs. pigmentation 0.64, p<0.001), but patients scored higher than the observer at 6 months (color vs. vascularity 0.57, p<0.05; color vs. pigmentation 0.15, p=0.60). Burn depth was significantly correlated with skin thickness (r=0.51, p<0.01). Hypopigmentation of the burn site was present in 25.8% of children who re-epithelialized in ≤ 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: This study has provided information on outcomes for children with partial thickness burns and highlighted a need for further education of this population.

Randomized controlled trial of three burns dressings for partial thickness burns in children.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the effects of three silver dressing combinations on small to medium size acute partial thickness burns in children, focusing on re-epithelialization time, pain and distress during dressing changes. METHOD: Children (0-15 years) with clean, ≤ 10% total body surface area (TBSA) partial thickness burns who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Children received either (1) Acticoat™; (2) Acticoat™ with Mepitel™; or (3) Mepilex Ag™ dressings. Measures of burn re-epithelialization, pain, and distress were recorded at dressing changes every 3-5 days until full re-epithelialization occurred. RESULTS: One hundred and three children were recruited with 96 children included for analysis. No infections were detected for the course of the study. When adjusted for burn depth, Acticoat™ significantly increased the expected days to full re-epithelialization by 40% (IRR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.14-1.73, p < 0.01) and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ significantly increased the expected days to full re-epithelialization by 33% (IRR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08-1.63, p ≤ 0.01) when compared to Mepilex Ag™. Expected FLACC scores in the Mepilex Ag™ group were 32% lower at dressing removal (p = 0.01) and 37% lower at new dressing application (p = 0.04); and scores in the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ group were 23% lower at dressing removal (p = 0.04) and 40% lower at new dressing application (p < 0.01), in comparison to the Acticoat™ group. Expected Visual Analog Scale-Pain (VAS-P) scores were 25% lower in the Mepilex Ag™ group at dressing removal (p = 0.04) and 34% lower in the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ group (p = 0.02) at new dressing application in comparison to the Acticoat™ group. There was no significant difference between the Mepilex Ag™ and the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ groups at all timepoints and with any pain measure. CONCLUSION: Mepilex Ag™ is an effective silver dressing, in terms of accelerated wound re-epithelialization time (compared to Acticoat™ and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™) and decreased pain during dressing changes (compared to Acticoat™), for clean, < 10% TBSA partial thickness burns in children.

3D photography is a reliable burn wound area assessment tool compared to digital planimetry in very young children.

BACKGROUND: Reliability and validity of 3D photography (3D LifeViz™ System) compared to digital planimetry (Visitrak™) has been established in a compliant cohort of children with acute burns. Further research is required to investigate these assessment tools in children representative of the general pediatric burns population, specifically children under the age of three years. AIM: To determine if 3D photography is a reliable wound assessment tool compared to Visitrak™ in children of all ages with acute burns ≤10% TBSA. METHOD: Ninety-six children (median age 1 year 9 months) who presented to the Royal Children's Hospital Brisbane with an acute burn ≤10% TBSA were recruited into the study. Wounds were measured at the first dressing change using the Visitrak™ system and 3D photography. All measurements were completed by one investigator and level of agreement between wound surface area measurements was calculated. RESULTS: Wound surface area measurements were complete (i.e. participants had measurements from both techniques) for 75 participants. Level of agreement between wound surface area measurements calculated using an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was excellent (ICC 0.96, 95% CI 0.93, 0.97). Visitrak™ tracings could not be completed in 19 participants with 16 aged less than two years. 3D photography could not be completed for one participant. Barriers to completing tracings were: excessive movement, pain, young age or wound location (e.g. face or perineum). CONCLUSION: This study has confirmed 3D photography as a reliable alternative to digital planimetry in children of all ages with acute burns ≤10% TBSA. In addition, 3D photography is more suitable for very young children given its non-invasive nature.