Aquacel(®) Ag dressing versus Acticoat™ dressing in partial thickness burns: a prospective, randomized, controlled study in 100 patients. Part 1: burn wound healing.

INTRODUCTION: Studies comparing contemporary silver dressings in burns are scarce. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, controlled study, counting 50 patients/research group, we compared two frequently used silver dressings, Acticoat™ and Aquacel(®) Ag, in the management of partial thickness burns with a predicted healing time between 7 and 21 days as assessed by laser Doppler imaging between 48 and 72h after burn. Variables investigated were related to baseline research group characteristics, wound healing, bacteriology, economics, nurse, and patient experience. RESULTS: Both research groups were comparably composed taking into account gender, age and burn characteristics. Similar results were obtained as to healing time and bacterial control with both silver dressings. A statistically significant difference in favor of the Aquacel(®) Ag dressing was found for average ease of use (p<0.001), average ease of application (p=0.001), patient pain (p<0.001), patient comfort with the dressing (p=0.017), silver staining (p<0.001), and cost effectiveness (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both silver dressings resulted in comparable healing times and bacterial control but the Aquacel(®) Ag dressing significantly increased comfort for patients as well as nurses and was significantly more cost-effective than the Acticoat™ dressing for the given indication.

A comparative study of 1% silver sulphadiazine (Flammazine®) versus an enzyme alginogel (Flaminal®) in the treatment of partial thickness burns.

INTRODUCTION: In the conservative treatment of burns, rapid wound healing is desirable to obtain good a esthetic and functional results. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 1% Silversulfadiazine (SSD/Flammazine(®)) and an enzyme alginogel (Flaminal(®) or Flaminal(®) Forte) on the healing of superficial and intermediate partial thickness burns. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study comparable burn wounds treated with Flaminal(®) or with 1% SSD were included. Outcome parameters included: length of hospital stay, bacterial burden and time to wound closure. Significance was tested using SPSS package. RESULTS: 44 wounds in the Flaminal(®) group, and 39 wounds in the 1% SSD group were included. Wounds treated with Flaminal(®) showed a significantly higher bacterial load (p=0.024) and contained significantly more bacterial species (p=0.010) but showed a significantly shorter healing time of 17 vs. 24 days (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: A significantly shorter healing time was demonstrated in partial thickness burn wounds treated with Flaminal(®) versus 1% SSD, which may lead to a shorter length of hospital stay and better scar quality. The possibility of accurate burn depth assessment and the results in this study corroborate the change in treatment protocol made in the year 2000 when we switched from 1% SSD to Flaminal(®).

Treatment of Fournier's Gangrene With a Novel Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System .

UNLABELLED: Fournier's gangrene (FG) is a complex condition that requires surgical debridement, hemodynamic support, antibiotics, and appro- priate wound management. This study is the first to assess the use of a low-vacuum negative pressure wound therapy (LV-NPWT) system with low-adherent contact surface in two cases of FG. METHODS: The protocol-of-care included twice weekly dressing changes and irrigation with a povidone-iodine-water mixture. Assessments included wound progression (% granulation tissue), ratings of dressing ingrowth, pain during treatment and at dressing changes, patient comfort, and ease- of-use. RESULTS: A 51-year-old man (Patient A) developed FG after sur- gical removal of a perianal abscess. He received 16 days of LV-NPWT with five dressing changes. A 64-year-old man (Patient B) with multiple comorbidities, developed FG after traumatic injury. He received 20 days of LV-NPWT with six dressing changes. In both patients, LV-NPWT promoted rapid granulation tissue formation. Pain scores averaged low-to-moderate during treatment and dressing changes, and tissue ingrowth was minimal. CONCLUSION: Overall, ratings were favorable for LV-NPWT ease-of-use and patient comfort. Despite the complexity of these wounds, with the use of LV-NPWT, both wounds progressed to a point where they were able to successfully receive surgical closure with skin grafts and/or flaps. These cases may suggest that LV-NPWT may have a potential role in complex wound management.

Effectiveness of two cushions in the prevention of heel pressure ulcers.

AIM: The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of two cushions in the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in a geriatric population. BACKGROUND: Heel pressure ulcers are a major problem in nursing practice. Several measures for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers are discussed in the literature, but the effectiveness of the different types of cushions in the prevention of heel pressure ulcers is poorly studied. METHODS: In this comparative study, two different cushions to prevent heel pressure ulcers were investigated: a wedge-shaped, bedwide, viscoelastic foam cushion and an ordinary pillow. All patients were lying on a viscoelastic foam mattress and were repositioned every 4 hours. SAMPLE: One hundred sixty-two patients over 75 years of age. RESULTS: The incidence of heel pressure ulcers grades 2-4 was 1.9% in the wedge-shaped cushion group and was 10.2% in the pillow group. The patients in the wedge-shaped cushion group developed significantly fewer heel pressure ulcers (p = 0.03). Patients with a wedge-shaped cushion under the lower legs had an 85% less chance in developing a heel pressure ulcer (p = 0.02). The median time to develop a heel pressure ulcer was 4.0 days (IQR = 3.0-5.0) in the wedge-shaped cushion group and 3.5 days (IQR = 1.0-5.8) in the pillow group (p = 0.61). The probability to remain pressure ulcer-free at the heels was significantly higher in the wedge-shaped cushion group (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that a wedge-shaped, bedwide, viscoelastic foam cushion decreases the risk of developing a heel pressure ulcer compared with the use of a pillow.

Prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis: literature review.

AIM: This paper is a report of a review conducted to describe the current evidence about the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis and to formulate recommendations for clinical practice and research. BACKGROUND: Incontinence-associated dermatitis is a common problem in patients with incontinence. It is a daily challenge for healthcare professionals to maintain a healthy skin in patients with incontinence. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, reference lists and conference proceedings were explored up to September 2008. REVIEW METHODS: Publications were included if they reported research on the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis. As little consensus about terminology was found, a very sensitive filter was developed. Study design was not used as a selection criterion due to the explorative character of the review and the scarce literature. RESULTS: Thirty-six publications, dealing with 25 different studies, were included. The implementation of a structured perineal skin care programme including skin cleansing and the use of a moisturizer is suggested. A skin protectant is recommended for patients considered at risk of incontinence-associated dermatitis development. Perineal skin cleansers are preferable to using water and soap. Skin care is suggested after each incontinence episode, particularly if faeces are present. The quality of methods in the included studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinence-associated dermatitis can be prevented and healed with timely and appropriate skin cleansing and skin protection. Prevention and treatment should also focus on a proper use of incontinence containment materials. Further research is required to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of various interventions.

A systematic review of the use of hydrocolloids in the treatment of pressure ulcers.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic literature review was to describe the current evidence in the field of pressure ulcer treatment with hydrocolloids and to give recommendations for clinical practice and further research. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are a common problem in clinical practice and generate substantial expense. A wide range of dressings is available but little is known about the effect on pressure ulcer healing. METHODS: A Cochrane-based search strategy was used in four databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), manuals and reference lists. Randomised controlled trials on the treatment of pressure ulcers with hydrocolloids, as defined by the British National Formulary, were systematically included and analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine publications, dealing with 28 different studies, met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Hydrocolloids were most frequently used on pressure ulcers grade 2-3. Concerning the healing of the pressure ulcer, hydrocolloids are more effective than gauze dressings for the reduction of the wound dimensions. The absorption capacity, the time needed for dressing changes, the pain during dressing changes and the side-effects were significantly in favour of hydrocolloids if compared to gauze dressings. Based on the available cost-effectiveness data, hydrocolloids seemed to be less expensive compared with collagen-, saline- and povidine-soaked gauze but more expensive compared to hydrogel, polyurethane foam and collagenase. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that hydrocolloids are to be preferred to gauze dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Additional research is needed to confirm these results. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Based on the studies included in this review, hydrocolloids are frequently used in the treatment of grade 2 and 3 pressure ulcers and are more effective and less expensive than gauze dressings. Compared with alginates, polyurethane dressings, less-contact layers, topical enzymes and biosynthetic dressings, hydrocolloids are less effective.