Search

Burn wound management is challenging, especially in paediatric patients when optimising outcomes. Superficial burns are generally managed conservatively with dressings; however, frequent dressing changes can be a source of pain and discomfort. Cellulose dressings mitigate these problems, and current reports in the literature have demonstrated positive outcomes when compared against routine dressing types. The authors aim to report a systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of cellulose-based dressings in burn wound management. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement standards. The primary outcome measures were epithelialisation rate, duration of hospital stay, and the number of dressing changes. The electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. OpenMeta [analyst] software was used for data synthesis. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative synthesis with eight articles meeting the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis, with cellulose-based dressings showing a significantly increased rate of healing on mean difference analysis: 1.350 (0.007, 2.694), standard error; 0.685, p = 0.049. A shorter duration of hospital stay was also observed in the cellulose cohort: 6.583 (5.739, 7.428), standard error 0.431, p < 0.001. Likewise the frequency of dressing changes was lower: odds ratio 0.125 (0.015, 1.062), p < 0.001. There was no difference in the infection rate compared to standard dressings. Cellulose dressings can expedite wound healing whilst reducing the duration of hospitalisation and frequency of dressing changes compared to standard dressings in burn wound management. The authors however recommend further high quality trials to enhance the current evidence base. • Cellulose based dressings showed a significantly faster healing time in comparison to control dressings. • Patients with cellulose based dressings had a much lower length of hospital stay in comparison to control dressings. • Patients with cellulose based dressings required fewer dressing changes than patients with control dressings. • There were no significant differences in infection rates with cellulose based dressings and other burns dressings. • Cellulose based dressings had good outcomes with pain levels and scar cosmesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hip fracture is a common and serious injury in the elderly. Hip arthroplasty is the most frequently performed procedure for patients with an  intracapsular hip fracture. The majority of national guidelines recommend total hip arthroplasty (THA) for more active patients. Literature indicates significant stability advantages for dual mobility (DM) acetabular components in non-emergent scenarios. Evidence supporting the use of DM in hip fracture patients is limited.Aim: We set out to ascertain if DM implants offer stability and/or functional advantages over standard THA in patients with hip fracture.Methods: We utilised our local National Hip Fracture Database to identify all patients undergoing either a standard or DM THA for hip fracture (n=477) We matched cohorts based on age, AMTS, mobility status pre-operatively, gender, ASA and source of admission. Our primary outcome of interest was functional status using the oxford hip score (OHS). Secondary outcome measures included  dislocation, fracture and deep infection requiring further surgery.Results: 62 patient pairs were available for this study. Mean OHS for DM THA was 41.5 and for standard THA this was 42.7 (p=0.58). There were 4 dislocations in the standard THA group and 0 with DM THA. No difference was seen with infection or peri-prosthetic fracture.Conclusion: This study demonstrates functional equivalence between DM and standard THA. In addition it shows a trend towards less dislocation with DM THA. Cost savings from less instability may outweigh initial prosthesis costs. This study suggests a suitably powered RCT using instability as the primary outcome measure is indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]