International journal of burns and trauma · 2018
Biobrane™ versus acticoat™ for the treatment of mid-dermal pediatric burns: a prospective randomized controlled pilot study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hyland Ela J, D'Cruz Rachel, Menon Seema, Harvey John G, La Hei Erik, Lawrence Torey, Waddell Kelly, Nash Mitchell, Holland Andrew Ja
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The management of pediatric mid-dermal burns is challenging. Anecdotal evidence suggests Biobrane™ (UDL Laboratories, Inc., Sugar Land, TX) may expedite epithelization, reducing the requirement for skin grafting. Our standard management for burns of this depth is Acticoat™ (Smith and Nephew, St. Petersburg, Fl, USA). No publications are known to compare Biobrane™ to Acticoat™ for treatment of mid-dermal burns.
METHODS: A prospective, randomised controlled pilot study was conducted, comparing Biobrane™ to Acticoat™ for mid-dermal burns affecting ≥ 1% Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) in children. Mid-dermal burns were confirmed using Laser Doppler Imaging within 48 hours of injury. Participants were randomized to Biobrane™ with an Acticoat™ overlay or Acticoat™ alone.
RESULTS: 10 participants were in each group. Median age and TBSA were similar; 2.0 (Biobrane™) and 1.5 years (Acticoat™), 8% (Biobrane™) and 8.5% TBSA (Acticoat™). Use of Biobrane™ had higher infection rates (6 children versus 1) (P = 0.057) and more positive wound swabs, although not significant (7 children versus 4) (P = 0.37). Healing time was shorter in the Biobrane™ group, this was not significant (19 days versus 26.5 days, P = 0.18). Median dressing changes were similar (5 versus 5.5) (P = 0.56). Skin grafting requirement was greater in the Acticoat™ group (7 versus 4 children, P = 0.37) and similar in % TBSA (1.75% TBSA).
CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that the use of Biobrane™ for mid-dermal burns in children may be associated with increased risk of infection but appears to decrease the time to healing and therefore the need for skin grafting compared to Acticoat™ alone.
METHODS: A prospective, randomised controlled pilot study was conducted, comparing Biobrane™ to Acticoat™ for mid-dermal burns affecting ≥ 1% Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) in children. Mid-dermal burns were confirmed using Laser Doppler Imaging within 48 hours of injury. Participants were randomized to Biobrane™ with an Acticoat™ overlay or Acticoat™ alone.
RESULTS: 10 participants were in each group. Median age and TBSA were similar; 2.0 (Biobrane™) and 1.5 years (Acticoat™), 8% (Biobrane™) and 8.5% TBSA (Acticoat™). Use of Biobrane™ had higher infection rates (6 children versus 1) (P = 0.057) and more positive wound swabs, although not significant (7 children versus 4) (P = 0.37). Healing time was shorter in the Biobrane™ group, this was not significant (19 days versus 26.5 days, P = 0.18). Median dressing changes were similar (5 versus 5.5) (P = 0.56). Skin grafting requirement was greater in the Acticoat™ group (7 versus 4 children, P = 0.37) and similar in % TBSA (1.75% TBSA).
CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that the use of Biobrane™ for mid-dermal burns in children may be associated with increased risk of infection but appears to decrease the time to healing and therefore the need for skin grafting compared to Acticoat™ alone.