ABSTRACT
Wound care quality and speed of burn healing are important factors that affect the treatment, prognosis and complications of burns. Burn care is challenging, and the ideal method controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of a new dressing (ColActive dressing) in the treatment of superficial second-degree burns versus traditional dressing including Vaseline and Nitrofurazone. This was a randomized clinical trial study involving 25 cases. A superficial second-degree burn area was divided into two parts in each patient; randomly, traditional dressing was used on one area, and ColActive plus Ag dressing on the other. Every 3 days, after removing the dressings and washing the wounds, wound surface area was evaluated by medical photographic records and J image software. Wound surface area in the two groups was compared before dressing and on the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th day afterwards. The difference was not significant before dressing, but significant on the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th post-operative day. The difference was significant in both groups, but it was more prominent in the ColActive group (p<0.001) than in the traditional group (p<0.05). Considering the results of this study and good results in previous case reports, ColActive may be more effective than traditional dressing. We suggest a more comprehensive study for a longer period with a larger number of cases to compare other important variables such as scar quality, cost, and pain in the two dressings.
La qualité des soins locaux et la vitesse de cicatrisation sont d'importants paramètres affectant le traitement, le pronostic et les complications des brûlures. La méthode idéale reste encore à trouver. Le but de cet étude est de comparer un nouveau pansement (ColActive ®) au traditionnel nitrofurazone/vaseline sur les brûlures du 2ème superficiel. Il s'agit d'une étude randomisée portant sur 25 patients. Les zones de 2ème superficiel étaient divisées en 2 recevant, après tirage au sort, l'une ColActive® Plus Ag, l'autre nitrofurazone/vaseline. Après nettoyage, les photographies des brûlures étaient évaluées en utilisant Image J, à l'entrée et à J3, 6, 9 et 12. Les différences étaient significatives à J3, 6, 9, 12 avec une valeur de p plus prononcée (<0,001) dans le groupe ColActive® Plus Ag que dans le groupe contrôle (<0,05). Considérant ces résultats en faveur de l'utilisation de ColActive® Plus Ag, nous suggérons une étude plus globale, sur un nombre plus élevé de patients, comparant aussi la qualité cicatricielle, le coût et la douleur.
