ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The long-term aesthetic appearance of scars is of great importance to patients. Biobrane (Smith and Nephew, Fort Worth, Texas), a biosynthetic skin dressing, is a successfully established dressing for the treatment of superficial wounds. A new silk barrier dressing (Dressilk; Prevor, Moulin de Verville, France) has also shown good results in wound healing. This study evaluated the long-term scar quality of superficial wounds treated with these dressings. METHODS: From February 2012 to May 2013, 11 patients with burns in need of skin grafting received donor site treatment. Study authors dressed 2 adjacent, standardized, partial-thickness skin graft donor sites on each participant with Biobrane or Dressilk. Scar formation on both treated areas was compared 24 months after initial application using subjective and objective assessment methods. RESULTS: Independent of treatment, the majority of the patients described scar quality similar to normal skin using subjective and objective evaluation tools. However, for scar perfusion, significantly lower oxygen saturation was shown in both treated areas compared with untreated skin. CONCLUSIONS: Comparatively, the 2 wound dressings showed similar results, making silk dressings an interesting alternative to biosynthetic ones.
Subject(s)
Burns/surgery , Cicatrix/prevention & control , Coated Materials, Biocompatible/therapeutic use , Silk/therapeutic use , Skin Transplantation/methods , Adult , Biological Dressings , Burns/complications , Cicatrix/etiology , Cohort Studies , Esthetics , Female , Humans , Injury Severity Score , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Skin Transplantation/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Wound Healing/physiologyABSTRACT
Severe burns of the hands are extremely challenging, given their anatomic complexity and vulnerability. Although excisional debridement with autografting remains the standard of care (SOC), previous studies have shown that use of enzymatic debridement with bromelain (NexoBrid, EDNX) enables rapid, selective enzymatic debridement, preserving viable tissue. To date, only two studies accruing data on EDNX in this setting have been published. The current study was conducted to compare EDNX with traditional surgical debridement (TSD) of deep dermal and full-thickness hand burns. This single-center, controlled clinical trial included 40 patients, aged 18 to 76 years, with deep dermal burns of the hand. The first 20 patients were debrided surgically, and the other 20 patients were using EDNX for debridement. Therapeutic selectivity, time to complete debridement and healing, complications, and 3-month functional/esthetic outcomes were compared by group. EDNX (vs TSD) significantly reduced time to complete debridement after admission (0.95 day vs 7.750 days; P < .001) and treatments needed for complete debridement (1.05 vs 1.45; P < .001), improving burn depth evaluation (initially overestimated in 55% of EDNX-treated patients). The number of wounds requiring autografting was certainly reduced (15% vs 95%; P = .034), as was time to complete healing after first debridement (23.30 vs 32.00 days; P < .001), and early scar quality after 3 months was nearly equivalent, with only heightened local redness in the EDNX group (P < .001). Compared with TSD, EDNX was superior in burn depth evaluation, tissue preservation, completeness of debridement, and wound closure. Scar quality after 3 months did not differ substantially.
