A silicone-coated nylon dressing reduces healing time in burned paediatric patients in comparison with standard sulfadiazine treatment: a prospective randomized trial

Bugmann, Philippe; Taylor, Samuel E.; Gyger, D; Lironi, Alain; Génin, Bérengère; Vunda, Aaron; Scala, Giorgio La; Birraux, Jacques; Coultre, C. Le

doi:10.1016/s0305-4179(98)00095-3

Cited by 65 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of outer layer dressing changes is not previously described in studies in patients with partial thickness burns that were treated with Suprathel ® . The number of outer layer dressing changes in our study is comparable with the mean number of dressing changes between 1.5 and 7.5 in RCTs that used (semi)synthetics dressings in the treatment of partial thickness burns in children [23, 24, 44, 45]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Usability and effectiveness of Suprathel® in partial thickness burns in children

Rashaan

Krijnen

Allema

et al. 2016

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeEvaluation of usability and effectiveness of Suprathel® in the treatment of partial thickness burns in children.MethodsA prospective, observational study to evaluate adherence of Suprathel® to the wound bed, reepithelialization time, grafting, wound colonization and infection, pain, dressing changes, length of hospital stay (LOS) and scar formation.ResultsTwenty-one children (median age 2.4 years, range 5 months–14 years) with a median total body surface area (TBSA) of 4 % (range 1–18) were included. Median LOS was 10 days (range 3–20). Median outer layer dressing changes was 3 (range 1–14). Suprathel® was only adherent in wounds debrided with Versajet®. Median reepithelialization time was 13 days (range 7–29). Three patients needed a split skin graft. There were 7 (33 %) patients with wound colonization before application of Suprathel®. This increased to 12 (57 %) patients during treatment. One patient developed a wound infection. Median visual analog scale (VAS) scores for background and procedural pain in patients >7 years were 3.2 (range 2–5) and 3.5 (range 2–5), respectively. In younger patients, median background and procedural COMFORT-B scores were 13.8 (range 10–23) and 14.8 (range 13–23, p = 0.03), respectively. Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) scores were favorable after 3 and 6 months post burn.ConclusionsSuprathel® provides potential advantages regarding pain and scar formation, but extensive wound debridement is needed to achieve adequate adherence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Usability and effectiveness of Suprathel® in partial thickness burns in children

Rashaan

Krijnen

Allema

et al. 2016

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More surprising are the results in terms of complete wound closure at day 21 in the present trial. Such a significant difference in favour of a silicone‐coated WCL dressing has not yet been published, except in some previously reported studies, which compared this type of WCL to silver sulfadiazine in the treatment of benign burns . It could be hypothesised that a lower pain level at dressing change reflects a lower injury risk for the wound bed and the peri‐wound skin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised, controlled, non‐inferiority trial comparing the performance of a soft silicone‐coated wound contact layer (Mepitel One) with a lipidocolloid wound contact layer (UrgoTul) in the treatment of acute wounds

David¹,

Wurtz²,

Breton

et al. 2017

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wound contact layer (WCL) dressings are intended to protect tissue during the healing process. A randomised controlled trial was undertaken to compare 2 such dressings. Outpatients with acute wounds were randomly allocated to treatment with either a soft silicone‐coated WCL (intervention group, n = 59) or a lipidocolloid‐impregnated WCL (control group, n = 62). At the first dressing removal (day 3), 89.8% of patients in the intervention group experienced non‐painful dressing removal (defined as a pain rating <30 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale), compared with 73.6% of patients in the control group (P = .017) (per protocol population). At day 21, wounds were considered as healed in 66.1% of patients in the intervention group compared with 43.5% in the control group (P = .012) (intention‐to‐treat population). Both dressings were well tolerated and rated highly in terms of in‐use characteristics, although the soft silicone‐coated WCL was rated significantly higher than the lipidocolloid‐impregnated WCL in terms of its ability to remain in place (P= .016). The results indicate that the soft silicone‐coated WCL is suitable for the management of acute wounds as it can minimise dressing‐associated pain and support healing.

show abstract

“…A number of dressings appear to have some benefits over other products in burn management, and this benefit relates to time to wound healing, the number of dressing changes and the level of pain experienced. Although not all the included studies showed difference between compared interventions, the results indicate that burns dressed with hydrogels [19,20], siliconcoated dressings [21,22], biosynthetic dressings [23][24][25][26] and antimicrobial dressings [27][28][29] healed more rapidly than those dressed with silver sulphadiazine or chlorhexidine-impregnated gauze dressings.…”

Section: Best Among the Commercial Dressingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commercial dressings for burns versus sweet ancient remedy

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A silicone-coated nylon dressing reduces healing time in burned paediatric patients in comparison with standard sulfadiazine treatment: a prospective randomized trial

Cited by 65 publications

References 12 publications

Usability and effectiveness of Suprathel® in partial thickness burns in children

Usability and effectiveness of Suprathel® in partial thickness burns in children

A randomised, controlled, non‐inferiority trial comparing the performance of a soft silicone‐coated wound contact layer (Mepitel One) with a lipidocolloid wound contact layer (UrgoTul) in the treatment of acute wounds

Commercial dressings for burns versus sweet ancient remedy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About