Search

Among the available dressings for partial‐thickness burn wound treatment, SUPRATHEL has shown good usability and effectiveness for wound healing and patient comfort and has been used in many burn centres in the last decade. Recently, bacterial nanocellulose (BNC) has become popular for the treatment of wounds, and many studies have demonstrated its efficacy. epicitehydro, consisting of BNC and 95% water, is a promising product and has recently been introduced in numerous burn centres. To date, no studies including direct comparisons to existing products like SUPRATHEL have been conducted. Therefore, we aimed to compare epicitehydro to SUPRATHEL in the treatment of partial‐thickness burns. Twenty patients with partial‐thickness burns affecting more than 0.5% of their total body surface area (TBSA) were enrolled in this prospective, unicentric, open, comparative, intra‐individual clinical study. After debridement, the wounds were divided into two areas: one was treated with SUPRATHEL and the other with epicitehydro. Wound healing, infection, bleeding, exudation, dressing changes, and pain were documented. The quality of the scar tissue was assessed subjectively using the Patient and Observer Scar Scale. Wound healing in patients with a mean TBSA of 9.2% took 15 to 16 days for both treatments without dressing changes. All wounds showed minimal exudation, and patients reported decreased pain with the only significant difference between the two dressings on day 1. No infection or bleeding occurred in any of the wounds. Regarding scar evaluation, SUPRATHEL and epicitehydro did not differ significantly. Both wound dressings were easy to use, were highly flexible, created a safe healing environment, had similar effects on pain reduction, and showed good cosmetic and functional results without necessary dressing changes. Therefore, epicitehydro can be used as an alternative to SUPRATHEL for the treatment of partial‐thickness burn wounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently, many dressings are commercially available for the treatment of burn wounds. Some of these wound dressings remain on the wound, prevent painful dressing changes, and reduce tissue scarring. Nevertheless, still a wound dressing that is cost‐effective, produces good wound healing properties, and has a high patient satisfaction is needed. Standard care of superficial burn wounds differs between burn centres. This study aimed to determine a dressing with easy appliance, accurate pain control, favourable outcome, and cost‐effectiveness. Therefore, we compared the widely used but expensive Suprathel with the rather new but much cheaper Dressilk in the clinical setting. In a prospective clinical study, the healing of partial thickness burn wounds after simultaneous treatment with Suprathel and Dressilk was examined in 20 patients intra‐individually. During wound healing, pain, infection, exudation, and bleeding were evaluated. A subjective scar evaluation was performed using the Patient and Observer Scar Scale. Both dressings were easy to apply, remained on the wound in place, and were gradually cut back as reepithelisation proceeded and showed similar times to wound closure. Dressing changes were not necessary, and neither infections nor bleeding was detected. Overall exudation and pain were highest in the beginning but declined during the wound‐healing phase without significant differences. In the follow‐up scar evaluation after 12 months, patients reported overall high satisfaction. Overall, the modern dressings Suprathel and Dressilk (solely made out of pure silk) led to safe wound healing without infection and rapidly reduced pain. There was no need for dressing changes, and they had similar clinical outcomes in scar evaluation. Therefore, both dressings seem to be ideal for the treatment of superficial burns. Because acquisition costs remain one of the main factors in the treatment of burns, Dressilk, which is ~20 times cheaper than Suprathel, remains a good option for the treatment of partial thickness burns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among the available dressings for partial-thickness burn wound treatment, SUPRATHEL has shown good usability and effectiveness for wound healing and patient comfort and has been used in many burn centres in the last decade. Recently, bacterial nanocellulose (BNC) has become popular for the treatment of wounds, and many studies have demonstrated its efficacy. epicite hydro , consisting of BNC and 95% water, is a promising product and has recently been introduced in numerous burn centres. To date, no studies including direct comparisons to existing products like SUPRATHEL have been conducted. Therefore, we aimed to compare epicite hydro to SUPRATHEL in the treatment of partial-thickness burns. Twenty patients with partial-thickness burns affecting more than 0.5% of their total body surface area (TBSA) were enrolled in this prospective, unicentric, open, comparative, intra-individual clinical study. After debridement, the wounds were divided into two areas: one was treated with SUPRATHEL and the other with epicite hydro . Wound healing, infection, bleeding, exudation, dressing changes, and pain were documented. The quality of the scar tissue was assessed subjectively using the Patient and Observer Scar Scale. Wound healing in patients with a mean TBSA of 9.2% took 15 to 16 days for both treatments without dressing changes. All wounds showed minimal exudation, and patients reported decreased pain with the only significant difference between the two dressings on day 1. No infection or bleeding occurred in any of the wounds. Regarding scar evaluation, SUPRATHEL and epicite hydro did not differ significantly. Both wound dressings were easy to use, were highly flexible, created a safe healing environment, had similar effects on pain reduction, and showed good cosmetic and functional results without necessary dressing changes. Therefore, epicite hydro can be used as an alternative to SUPRATHEL for the treatment of partial-thickness burn wounds., (© 2021 The Authors. International Wound Journal published by Medicalhelplines.com Inc (3M) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)