Evaluation of an oxygen-diffusion dressing for accelerated healing of donor-site wounds.

Accelerating the healing process and reducing pain during healing are beneficial for the following reasons: faster return to work, lower risk of wound infection, improved quality of life, and possibly reduced need for analgesia. This clinical study assessed the effectiveness of a new oxygen-diffusion dressing (OxyBand; Oxyband Technologies, St. Louis, MO) compared with standard Xeroform gauze dressings (Convidien, Mansfield, MA), in the care of skin-graft donor sites in burn patients. Time to healing was the primary endpoint, and pain scores and cosmetic outcome were also assessed. This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study of burn patients undergoing harvesting of two donor sites. Patients were followed at predetermined time points for 30 to 45 days to determine the time to reepithelialization, cosmetic appearance, and pain. Subjects were adult burn patients with less than 30% TBSA burns admitted to the burn center, who required excision and grafting. Twenty patients were enrolled, of whom 17 completed the study. Average age was 35 years. Average burn size was 9.2% TBSA. Patients underwent harvesting of split-thickness skin grafts with one donor wound dressed with OxyBand and the other dressed in Xeroform gauze. Wounds were inspected and photographed on postoperative days 4 and 8, and then every 2 days until the donor wounds were healed. Pain scores at each site were also collected at these visits (rated by patients on a scale from 0 to 10). Mean time to wound healing for OxyBand was 9.3 ± 1.7 days; for Xeroform, 12.4 ± 2.7 days (P < .001). Pain scores were lower (P < .01) at the OxyBand site compared with the Xeroform site at all time points during postoperative days 4 to 12. There was no difference in the cosmetic outcome of the wounds at 30 to 45 days postoperatively. This study revealed a decrease in the time to healing and in pain at donor sites dressed with an oxygen-diffusion dressing.

Prehospital interventions performed in a combat zone: a prospective multicenter study of 1,003 combat wounded.

BACKGROUND: Battlefield care given to a casualty before hospital arrival impacts clinical outcomes. To date, the published data regarding care given in the prehospital setting of a combat zone are limited. The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence and efficacy of specific prehospital lifesaving interventions (LSIs; interventions that could affect the outcome of the casualty), consistent with the Tactical Combat Casualty Care paradigm, performed during the resuscitation of casualties in a combat zone. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study between November 2009 and November 2011. Casualties were enrolled as they were treated at six US surgical facilities in Afghanistan. Descriptive data were collected on a standardized data collection form and included mechanism of injury, airway management, chest and hemorrhage interventions, vascular access, type of fluid administered, and hypothermia prevention. On arrival to the military hospital, the treating physician determined whether an intervention was performed correctly and whether an intervention was not performed that should have been performed (missed LSI). RESULTS: A total of 1,003 patients met the inclusion criteria. Their mean (SD) age was 25 (8.5) years and 97% were male. The mechanism of injury was explosion in 60% of patients, penetrating in 24% of patients, blunt in 15% of patients, and burn in 0.8% of patients. The most commonly performed LSIs included hemorrhage control (n = 599), hypothermia prevention (n = 429), and vascular access (n = 388). Of the missed LSIs, 252 were identified with the highest percentage of missed opportunities being composed of endotracheal intubation, chest needle decompression, and hypotensive resuscitation. In contrast, tourniquet application had the lowest percentage of missed opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: In our prospective study of prehospital LSIs performed in a combat zone, we observed a higher rate of incorrectly performed and missed LSIs in airway and chest (breathing) interventions than hemorrhage control interventions. The most commonly performed LSIs had lower incorrect and missed LSI rates.

Prehospital burn management in a combat zone.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to provide a descriptive study of the management of burns in the prehospital setting of a combat zone. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of U.S. casualties with >20% total-body-surface-area thermal burns, transported from the site of injury to Ibn Sina Combat Support Hospital (CSH) between January 1, 2006, and August 30, 2009. RESULTS: Ibn Sina CSH received 225 burn casualties between January 2006 and August 2009. Of these, 48 met the inclusion criteria. The mean Injury Severity Score was 31.7 (range 4 to 75). Prehospital vascular access was obtained in 24 casualties (50%), and 20 of the casualties received fluid resuscitation. Out of the 48 casualties enrolled, 28 (58.3%) did not receive prehospital fluid resuscitation. Of the casualties who received fluid resuscitation, nearly all received volumes in excess of the guidelines established by the American Burn Association and those recommended by the Committee for Tactical Combat Casualty Care. With regard to pain management in the prehospital setting, 13 casualties (27.1%) received pain medication. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the prehospital fluid resuscitation of primary thermal injury in the combat zone, two extremes were noted. The first group did not receive any fluid resuscitation; the second group was resuscitated with fluid volumes higher than those expected if established guidelines were utilized. Pain management was not uniformly provided to major burn casualties, even in several with vascular access. These observations support improved education of prehospital personnel serving in a combat zone.