Search

Abstract: This is a study to compare wound healing among three types of dressings on a porcine model with deep-dermal-partial-thickness burns. The burns in this study were from eight animal trials conducted in the past for other purposes and only burns with a uniform pale appearance that had served as controls in original experiments were selected. In total, there were 57 burns in 33 pigs, using one of following three dressings: Acticoat (Silver) (3 trials), Jelonet (Gauze) (3 trials), and Solosite Gel/Jelonet (Gel/Gauze) (2 trials). The wound healing assessments included wound re-epithelialisation during a 6-week period, clinical and histological scar assessments at week 6 after burn. Of all wound healing/scar assessments, only re-epithelialisation showed statistical difference between dressings. Earlier re-epithelialisation was observed in Gel/Gauze dressings compared to Silver and/or Gauze dressings. However, this study revealed huge variation in wound healing outcome between 3 trials within both Silver and/or Gauze dressings, supported by significant differences on re-epithelialisation, clinical and histological scar measurements. In addition, it was found that larger animals healed better than smaller ones, based on weights from 21 pigs. Of all dressings, Silver delivers the best protection for wound colonization/infection. Wound colonization/infection was found to confine wound healing and lead to thinner RND in scars. From this study, we cannot find enough evidence to suggest the beneficial effect of one dressing(s) over others on burn wound healing outcome on a porcine model with small deep-dermal-partial-thickness burns with a relative small sample size. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This study describes the evaluation of a clinical scar scale for our porcine burn scars, which includes scar cosmetic outcome, colour, height and hair, supplemented with reference porcine scar photographs representing each scar outcome and scar colour scores. A total of 72 porcine burn scars at week 6 after burn were rated in vivo and/or on photographs. Good agreements were achieved for both intra-rater reliability (correlation is 0.86–0.98) and inter-rater reliability (ICC=80–85%). The results showed statistically significant correlations for each pair in this clinical scar scale (p <0.01), with the best correlation found between scar cosmetic outcome and scar colour. A multivariate principle components analysis revealed that this clinical scar assessment was highly correlated with scar histology, wound size, and re-epithelialisation data (p <0.001). More severe scars are clinically characterised by darker purple colouration, more elevation, no presence of hair, histologically by thicker scar tissue, thinner remaining normal dermis, are more likely to have worse contraction, and slower re-epithelialisation. This study demonstrates that our clinical scar scale is a reliable, independent and valuable tool for assessing porcine burn outcome and truthfully reflects scar appearance and function. To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating a high correlation between clinical scar assessment and scar histology, wound contraction and re-epithelialisation data on porcine burn scars. We believe that the successful use of porcine scar scales is invaluable for assessing potential human burn treatments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]