Assessing antibacterial efficacy of a polyhexanide hydrogel versus alginate-based wound dressing in burns.

OBJECTIVE: Burn injuries pose a heightened risk of infection, which is primarily responsible for increased morbidity and mortality. Factors such as extensive skin damage and compromised immunity exacerbate this vulnerability. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus are frequently identified in burns, with Gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa often resistant to antibacterial agents. While Flaminal, an alginate-based wound dressing (Flen Health, Belgium), aids wound healing, its antibacterial effects are limited compared with 1% silver sulfadiazine (1% SSD). In contrast, Prontosan Wound Gel X, a betaine and polyhexanide-based hydrogel (B. Braun Medical AG, Switzerland), has been shown to effectively combat various microbes and promotes wound healing. METHOD: In this study, two research cohorts were retrospectively established (control group: patients receiving standard of care with the alginate-based wound dressing; intervention group: patients receiving the polyhexanide hydrogel wound dressing), comprising patients admitted to a burn centre between 2019 and 2022. Patients were eligible when continuous wound treatment with either of the two wound dressings was performed. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) scans were conducted. Regions of interest (ROIs) were selected based on LDI scans and divided into healing time categories. Wound swabs were collected and the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus was documented. Bacterial load was evaluated using a semiquantitative scale. Wound healing was recorded. RESULTS: The control group consisted of 31 patients with 93 ROIs, while the intervention group had 67 ROIs involving 29 patients. Both groups exhibited similar proportions of healing time categories (p>0.05). The polyhexanide hydrogel dressing outperformed the alginate-based dressing in antiseptic efficacy by significantly reducing the incidence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa- and Staphylococcus aureus-positive cultures in patients' wounds. Wound healing time for conservative treatment was comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, the polyhexanide hydrogel dressing minimised Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus colonisation in burn wounds, demonstrating strong antibacterial properties, emphasising its potential to minimise infections in burn injuries.

A single-stage bilayered skin reconstruction using Glyaderm® as an acellular dermal regeneration template results in improved scar quality: an intra-individual randomized controlled trial.

Background: Absence of almost the entire reticular dermal layer is inherent to the use of autologous split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) to close full-thickness wounds, often resulting in hypertrophic scars and contractures. Many dermal substitutes have been developed, but unfortunately most have varying results in terms of cosmetic and/or functional improvement as well as patient satisfaction, in addition to high costs. Bilayered skin reconstruction using the human-derived glycerolized acellular dermis (Glyaderm®) has been reported to result in significantly improved scar quality using a two-step procedure. Unlike the necessary two-step procedure for most commercially available dermal substitutes, in this study we aimed to investigate the use of Glyaderm® in a more cost-effective single-stage engrafting. This is a method which, if autografts are available, is preferred by the majority of surgeons given the reduction in costs, hospitalization time and infection rate. Methods: A prospective, randomized, controlled, intra-individual, single-blinded study was performed, investigating the simultaneous application of Glyaderm® and STSG vs. STSG alone in full-thickness burns or comparable deep skin defects. During the acute phase, bacterial load, graft take and time to wound closure were assessed and were the primary outcomes. Aesthetic and functional results (secondary outcomes) were evaluated at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up using subjective and objective scar measurement tools. Biopsies for histological analysis were taken at 3 and 12 months. Results: A total of 66 patients representing 82 wound comparisons were included. Graft take (>95%), pain management and healing time were comparable in both groups. At 1 year follow-up, the overall Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale assessed by the patient was significantly in favour of sites where Glyaderm® was used. Not infrequently, patients attributed this difference to improved skin sensation. Histological analysis showed the presence of a well-formed neodermis, with donor elastin present for up to 12 months. Conclusions: A single-stage bilayered reconstruction with Glyaderm® and STSG results in optimal graft take without loss of Glyaderm® nor the overlaying autografts due to infection. The presence of elastin in the neodermis was demonstrated during long-term follow-up in all but one patient, which is a crucial factor contributing to the significantly improved overall scar quality as evaluated by the blinded patients. Trial registration: The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov and received the following registration code: NCT01033604.

Pressure therapy for scars: Myth or reality? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic scarring is a deviate occurrence after wound closure and is a common burn sequela. The mainstay of scar treatment consists of a trifold approach: hydration, UV-protection and the use of pressure garments with or without extra paddings or inlays to provide additional pressure. Pressure therapy has been reported to induce a state of hypoxia and to reduce the expression pattern of transforming growth factor-ß1 (TGF-ß1), therefore limiting the activity of fibroblasts. However, pressure therapy is said to be largely based on empirical evidence and a lot of controversy concerning the effectiveness still prevails. Many variables influencing its effectivity, such as adherence to treatment, wear time, wash frequency, number of available pressure garment sets and amount of pressure remain only partially understood. This systematic review aims to give a complete and comprehensive overview of the currently available clinical evidence of pressure therapy. METHODS: A systematic search for articles concerning the use of pressure therapy in the treatment and prevention of scars was performed in 3 different databases (Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library) according to the PRISMA statement. Only case series, case-control studies, cohort studies, and RCTs were included. The qualitative assessment was done by 2 separate reviewers with the appropriate quality assessment tools. RESULTS: The search yielded 1458 articles. After deduplication and removal of ineligible records, 1280 records were screened on title and abstract. Full text screening was done for 23 articles and ultimately 17 articles were included. Comparisons between pressure or no pressure, low vs high pressure, short vs long duration and early vs late start of treatment were investigated. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient evidence that indicates the value of prophylactic and curative use of pressure therapy for scar management. The evidence suggests that pressure therapy is capable of improving scar color, thickness, pain, and scar quality in general. Evidence also recommends commencing pressure therapy prior to 2 months after injury, and using a minimal pressure of 20-25 mmHg. To be effective, treatment duration should be at least 12 months and even preferably up to 18-24 months. These findings were in line with the best evidence statement by Sharp et al. (2016).

Outcomes of Meek micrografting versus mesh grafting on deep dermal and full thickness (burn) wounds: Study protocol for an intra-patient randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Autologous split thickness skin grafting is the standard-of-care for most deep dermal and full thickness skin defects. Historically, mesh grafting is used to expand skin grafts for smaller defects and other techniques such as Meek micrografting is used to enable expansion for larger skin defects. Yet, Meek micrografting is increasingly used for smaller skin defects as well. Both techniques are frequently used, especially in burn centers, but evidence on which one is preferable for relative smaller skin defects is lacking. Therefore, an intra-patient randomized controlled trial was designed to adequately compare multiple outcomes of the Meek micrografting and mesh grafting techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter intra-patient controlled randomized trial is being performed in two burn centers (the Netherlands and Belgium) to compare multiple outcomes of Meek micrografting and mesh grafting burns or skin defects. Study registration number (NL74274.029.20). Adult patients with a (burn) wound and an indication for surgical excision and skin grafting were screened for inclusion. In total 70 patients will be included and the primary outcome is scar quality twelve months post-surgery assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Moreover, graft take, re-epithelialization, infection rate, donor site size and patients' preference are also measured within hospital admission, on 3 months and 12 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized trial that is intra-patient controlled, which enables a proper comparison between both skin expansion techniques. The results of this study will contribute to the clarification of the indications of both techniques and ample attention is paid for the patients' opinion on the surgical treatment options.

The process to obtain reimbursement for enzymatic debridement in clinically deep burns.

INTRODUCTION: Burn eschar removal by enzymatic debridement with NexoBrid® (EDNX) results in a maximum preservation of all viable tissue, which is the main advantage over traditional tangential excision. The authors participated in a marketing authorization holder process to obtain reimbursement from the national health authorities in Belgium. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The reimbursement process consisted of three phases, as specified by the reimbursement regulations required by the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). RESULTS: Forty-one patients with clinically deep 2nd and 3rd degree burns, treated with EDNX in two Belgian burn centers, were included in the registry for the first phase of the reimbursement process. The total success rate of the EDNX treatment was 95.1% (39/41). Over half of the burn wounds treated with NexoBrid® (55.2%) did not require any additional surgical debridement or skin grafting. To obtain definitive reimbursement, an extra 16 patients were included. In this population, 51.4% did not require any surgical intervention. The total success rate of the EDNX debridement in this group was 100%. Based on an estimated market share of 12% and around 75 patients in the third year after final reimbursement, a market access consultant calculated that NexoBrid® will realize yearly savings for the Belgian Healthcare budget of at least €30.000. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this Belgian registry study in combination with the yearly healthcare budget savings, the NIHDI granted a final reimbursement for EDNX treatment in adults, endorsed by the Minister of Health on November 5th, 2019.

Occlusion and hydration of scars: moisturizers versus silicone gels.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of non-invasive scar management, consists of pressure therapy with customized pressure garments often combined with inlays, hydration by means of silicones and/or moisturizers as well as UV protection. It is generally accepted that scar dehydration resulting from impaired barrier function of the stratum corneum and expressed by raised trans epidermal water loss (TEWL) values, can lead to increased fibroblast activity and thereby hypertrophic scar formation. However, we have reached no consensus on exactly what optimal scar hydration is nor on barrier function repair: by means of silicone sheets, liquid silicone gels or moisturizers. Occlusive silicone sheets almost completely prevent TEWL and have been shown to be effective. Nevertheless, many important disadvantages due to excessive occlusion such as difficulties in applying the sheets exceeding 10-12 h, pruritus, irritation, and maceration of the skin are limiting factors for its use. To avoid these complications and to facilitate the application, liquid silicone gels were developed. Despite a reduced occlusion, various studies have shown that the effects are comparable to these of the silicone sheets. However, major limiting factors for general use are the long drying time, the shiny aspect after application, and the high cost especially when used for larger scars. Based on excellent clinical results after using three specific moisturizers for scar treatment in our patients, we wanted to investigate whether these moisturizers induce comparable occlusion and hydration compared to both each other and the widely recognized liquid silicone gels. We wanted to provide a more scientific basis for the kind of moisturizers that can be used as a full-fledged and cost-effective alternative to silicone gel. METHODS: A total of 36 healthy volunteers participated in this study. Increased TEWL was created by inducing superficial abrasions by rigorous (20x) skin stripping with Corneofix® adhesive tape in squares of 4 cm². Three moisturizers and a fluid silicone gel were tested: DermaCress, Alhydran, Lipikar and BAP Scar Care silicone gel respectively. TEWL reducing capacities and both absolute (AAH) and cumulative (CAAH) absolute added hydration were assessed using a Tewameter® TM300 and a Corneometer® CM825 at different time points for up to 4 h after application. RESULTS: We found an immediate TEWL increase in all the zones that underwent superficial abrasions by stripping. Controls remained stable over time, relative to the ambient condition. The mean percentage reduction (MPR) in TEWL kept increasing over time with Alhydran and DermaCress, reaching a maximum effect 4 h after application. Silicone gel reached maximal MPR almost immediately after application and only declined thereafter. The silicone gel never reached the minimal MPR of Alhydran or DermaCress. Hydration capacity assessed through CAAH as measured by the Corneometer was significantly less with silicone gel compared to the moisturizers. Compared to silicone gel Lipikar provided similar occlusion and the improvement in hydration was highly significant 4 h after application. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of both our previous research and this study it is clearly demonstrated that the occlusive and hydrative effect of fluid silicone gel is inferior to the moisturizers used in our center. Lipikar hydrates well but is less suitable for scar treatment due to the lack of occlusion. A well-balanced occlusion and hydration, in this study only provided by Alhydran and DermaCress, suggests that moisturizers can be used as a scar hydration therapy that replaces silicone products, is more cost-effective and has a more patient-friendly application.

The Meek micrograft technique for burns; review on its outcomes: Searching for the superior skin grafting technique.

INTRODUCTION: Autologous split thickness skin grafting is the standard-of-care for the majority of deep dermal and full thickness burns: Meshed grafting is most commonly used. Patients with extensive burn injuries have limited donor site availability. Meek micrografting is a well-known technique to enable larger expansions. A review was conducted on the outcomes of the Meek micrograft technique. METHOD: A database search in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library was conducted from the first Meek micrografting report in 1958 until 2021, including terms 'burns', 'micrografting' and/or 'Meek'. Original papers reporting outcomes of Meek micrografting were included. RESULTS: 1529 papers were identified and eventually 15 articles were included, the majority classified as poor quality according to Chambers criteria. 310 patients with 56% mean TBSA were described. Weighted averages were calculated for 'graft take' 82 ± 7%, 'time to wound closure' 53 ± 20 days and 'length of hospital stay' 61 ± 31 days. Scar quality was minimally described and often poorly assessed. Limited data were available on outcomes 'donor site size', 'number of operations', 'cost effectiveness' and 'bacterial load/wound infection rate'. CONCLUSION: Overall poor study quality and the specific lack of data on scar quality, made it impossible to draw conclusions on the outcomes of Meek micrografting. A randomized controlled trial is required to further investigate the performance of the Meek micrograft technique.

Enzymatic debridement: past, present, and future.

INTRODUCTION: Early surgical debridement of the deep second and third-degree burns is still the standard of care (SOC) to prepare the wound bed for skin grafting. However, this technique has some drawbacks that explain the growing interest in enzymatic debridement as an alternative. In this article, we provide a historic overview as well as the current state-of-the-art and future prospective of this type of non-surgical debridement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A narrative review of the available literature was conducted using a systematic search. RESULTS: A total of 32 articles were included. The only enzyme mixture still used nowadays for burn eschar removal is bromelain-based. There is increasing evidence that this type of enzymatic debridement is a powerful tool to selectively remove the eschar in deep burns, thereby reducing the need for autologous skin grafting compared to surgical SOC. Moreover, off-label use of enzymatic debridement with NexoBrid® (facial, pediatric, and >15%TBSA burns) has proven to be effective and safe. CONCLUSION: There is increasing evidence that bedside administered NexoBrid®, preferably under regional anesthesia, is a powerful tool for selective burn eschar removal. However, the clinical wound bed evaluation post-NexoBrid® procedure in relation to the optimal treatment decision-conservative treatment vs. surgery-is not yet completely elucidated. More high-quality prospective clinical trials are necessary to compare enzymatic debridement of objectively confirmed deep burns with the current standard treatment and assess the effectiveness of the eschar removal, the need for surgery, the healing time of such wounds, and the long-term scar quality.

The use of fluid silicone gels in the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scars: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Silicone products, either as a sheet or in fluid form, are universally considered as the first line therapy in the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids. However, the study results have been questioned by different authors and there has never been a large systematic synopsis published on the efficacy of fluid silicone gels. This systematic review aims to elucidate the available evidence of the results obtained by fluid silicone gels and present a complete and comprehensive overview of the available literature as well as a meta-analysis of the pooled data. METHODS: A systematic search for articles concerning the use of silicone gel in the treatment and prevention of scars was performed on 3 different databases (Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library) according to the PRISMA statement. Only RCT's were included. Qualitative assessment was done by 2 separate reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) assessment tool. Revman 5.4.1 software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded 507 articles. Two articles were identified through other sources. After deduplication and removal of ineligible records, 340 records were screened on title and abstract. Full text screening was done for 23 articles and ultimately 18 articles were included. A meta-analysis comparing fluid silicone gel to no treatment or placebo gels was conducted. CONCLUSION: Studies on the effects of liquid silicone gels on hypertrophic scars are numerous and this systematic review shows that the use of liquid silicone gels is associated with both a prophylactic and a curative effect on scars. However, a considerable amount of the available 'high evidence' trials are at a high risk for bias and it is uncertain whether or not the effects of silicone gels are comparable to silicone sheets and if the additional components present in many silicone gels are partially responsible for their scar improving capacity.

The LDI Enigma Part II: Indeterminate depth burns, man or machine?

INTRODUCTION: Laser Doppler imaging is universally considered the most evidence-based method for objective burn depth assessment by accurately predicting burn wound healing potential. This study has analyzed how exactly laser Doppler imaging measurements can be useful in the early therapeutic decision making for patients with clinically indeterminate depth burns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An extensive survey, by questionnaire and in-depth interviews, was conducted among 51 burn centers worldwide to gain insight on the practical use of laser Doppler imaging. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (53%) of the 51 burn centers contacted almost completely answered the 32 questions. Fifty-two percent of these centers (14/27) had at least 10 years of laser Doppler imaging experience. laser Doppler imaging was considered to be mainly or almost completely accurate by 89%. In case of discrepancy between clinical assessment and LDI, 41% relied more on clinical diagnosis, 25% delayed decision to operate, while 16% re-scanned the next day. The centers most experienced with laser Doppler imaging (13%) relied on it more. Final decisions for treatment were based on the combination of laser Doppler imaging and clinical assessment by 74%. Seventy percent of the centers almost never operated burns with laser Doppler imaging-red and would almost always operate burns with LDI-blue. Treatment decisions for intermediate laser Doppler imaging colors (pink, yellow and green) varied, with 76% basing decisions on other factors: % Total Body Surface Area (TBSA), general health, age, location of the burn, potential for colonization/infection, patient preference, compliance with aftercare, logistics, and socio-economic factors. CONCLUSION: Laser Doppler imaging reduces the number of clinical indeterminate depth burns. For these intermediate depth burns on laser Doppler imaging, treatment decisions are based on a combination of interpretation ('man') and laser Doppler imaging measurements ('machine'). Thorough knowledge of confounding factors and validated laser Doppler imaging color code, consideration of surrounding laser Doppler imaging colors, the use of mean flux values, and not directly burn related factors are essential. Burn centers with most laser Doppler imaging experience considered laser Doppler imaging an indispensable diagnostic tool.

The LDI Enigma, Part I: So much proof, so little use.

INTRODUCTION: Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is still not an ubiquitous part of burn care worldwide despite reported accuracy rates of more than 95%, which is significantly higher than clinical assessment alone (50-75%). The aims of Part I of this survey study are: to identify the most important barriers for the use of LDI and to provide useful recommendations for efficient implementation in routine burn care. The actual interpretation and use of LDI measurements is discussed in the Enigma Part II article. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 1. Informative interviews with 15 representatives of burn centers without LDI. 2. A survey among 51 burn centers with LDI by means of an extensive questionnaire. 3. In-depth interviews with 21 of the participating centers. RESULTS: 1. All 15 centers without LDI indicated that cost of purchase in combination with maintenance of the LDI device, as well as personnel costs were the reason for not buying, while 12 (80%) also rated the current scientific evidence as insufficient. 2. Twenty-seven burn centers with an LDI (53%) participated and filled in almost the entire questionnaire. In 5 centers, cost delayed the purchase of LDI. The hospital/department paid for the LDI device in 62% of the burn centers and in 88% also for maintenance and salaries. The LDI operators were mainly surgeons (47%) or nurses (42%). In more than half of the burn centers (52%), between 2 and 5 people were trained and certified to use an LDI. In 50% of burn centers, the interpretation of the LDI scan was done by the same person doing the actual measurements. Eighty-nine percent of the burn centers considered the accuracy of the LDI scan as mainly to almost completely accurate. In case of real discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and LDI, in 48% of the burn centers (13/27) the surgeon still relied more on the clinical diagnosis despite reporting this high or almost complete accuracy rate of the LDI. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers for the routine implementation of LDI were: 1. cost of purchasing and using an LDI combined with health care systems that inadequately reimburse non-surgical management; 2. lack of awareness of or ongoing skepticism towards the scientific evidence supporting LDI use; and 3. organizational constraints combined with logistical limitations. Our recommendations for wider use of LDI technology include: 1. a cost-effective reimbursement of LDI use combined with a more appropriate valuation of expert conservative management compared to surgical therapy; 2. increased use of LDI for every mixed depth burn and; 3. specialized LDI teams to improve burn procedural flexibility and to enable embedding LDI use in the burn care routine. Implementing these measures would promote the highest standards for LDI measurements and interpretation resulting in optimal care with mutual benefits for the hospital, for burn care teams and, most importantly, for the patients.

Evidence Based Burn Depth Assessment Using Laser-Based Technologies: Where Do We Stand?

Early clinical assessment of burn depth and associated healing potential (HP) remains extremely challenging, even for experienced surgeons. Inaccurate diagnosis often leads to prolonged healing times and unnecessary surgical procedures, resulting in incremental costs, and unfavorable outcomes. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is currently the most objective and accurate diagnostic tool to measure blood flow and its associated HP, the main predictor for a patient's long-term functional and aesthetic outcome. A systematic review was performed on non-invasive, laser-based methods for burn depth assessment using skin microcirculation measurements to determine time to healing: Laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF), LDI and laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI). Important drawbacks of single point LDF measurements are direct contact with numerous small points on the wound bed and the need to carry out serial measurements over several days. LDI is a fast, "non-contact," single measurement tool allowing to scan large burned areas with a 96% accuracy. LDI reduces the number of surgeries, improves the functional and aesthetic outcome and is cost-effective. There is only limited evidence for the use of LSCI in burn depth assessment. LSCI still needs technical improvements and scientific validation, before it can be approved for reliable burn assessment. LDI has proven to be invaluable in determining the optimal treatment of a burn patient. For unclear reasons, LDI is still not routinely used in burn centers worldwide. Additional research is required to identify potential "barriers" for universal implementation of this evidence-based burn depth assessment tool.

Injuries associated with electronic nicotine delivery systems: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Since its introduction on the market in 2007, the number of reports on injuries caused by the overheating, ignition, or explosion of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDSs) has increased significantly. These injuries appear to have different causes, the most important one being lithium-ion battery overheating to the point of ignition or explosion. METHODS: A literature search for all relevant studies concerning ENDS-related traumatic injuries of all kinds was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses protocol. The search started with the first introduction of ENDSs in 2007 and ended February 2020. Articles included were reports on patients who sustained flame, chemical, or traumatic injuries of the skin, soft tissue, and/or bone, related to the use of ENDSs. RESULTS: This systematic review includes 180 patients from 41 case series and reports, published between 2016 and 2020. The mean age was 30.8 years (range, 17-59 years) with an overall male predominance (168 of 180 patients, 93%). In most injuries, multiple anatomical sites were affected, with the thigh/lower limb being the most commonly injured area (77%) followed by the upper limb/hand (43%). Eighty-two patients (51%) required a surgical treatment, 70 patients (43%) were managed conservatively with dressings or ointments, and 9 patients (6%) underwent enzymatic debridement. Thirty-five percent of all patients underwent skin grafting. CONCLUSION: Injuries from overheating, ignition, or explosion of ENDSs are an emerging, underreported, and underresearched issue. There is a need for increased regulation of ENDSs and improved surveillance of related injuries. Both health care providers and consumers should be made aware of the risks and be advised about how to safely handle these devices. In contrast to other articles, this systematic review includes all types of injuries related to ENDS overheating, ignition, and explosion. To our knowledge, this is the most extensive systematic review performed to date. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review article, level III.

Enzymatic debridement as an effective treatment for combined flame and chemical burns caused by e-cigarettes.

Since its introduction on the market in 2007, the number of reports on injuries caused by the ignition or explosion of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has increased significantly. Two male patients have been treated at our burn center, the for ENDS-related injuries. Their batteries came into contact with metal objects stored in their pants pockets, resulting in a short circuit and finally ignition. In both patients, the combined flame and chemical burn wounds were initially irrigated with water upon arrival at the emergency department, leading to increased levels of pain. In our burn center, the wounds were extensively cleansed which led to a subsequent drop in NRS-scores. Laser Doppler Imaging showed a clear indication for surgery as both patients suffered a partial-thickness burn, with one patient having a patch of full-thickness burn as well. We swiftly performed an enzymatic debridement in both patients, followed by conservative wound management. Although enzymatic debridement is not generally recommended in the treatment of chemical burns, we successfully made use of this treatment option. Different authors advocate the use of mineral oils to irrigate or cover alkali burns, as contact between the chemical compounds and water can set off an exothermic reaction, leading to further injury. We believe that a hypertonic rinsing solution could be recommended as well in an emergency setting and we want to stress the importance of rapid removal of the chemical compounds in suspected chemical burns as well as swift debridement.

Exposed tibial bone after burns: Flap reconstruction versus dermal substitute.

A 44 years old male patient had suffered extensive 3rd degree burns on both legs, undergoing thorough surgical debridement, resulting in both tibias being exposed. Approximately 5 months after the incident he was referred to the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of the University Hospital Gent, Belgium, to undergo flap reconstruction. Free flap surgery was performed twice on both lower legs but failed on all four occasions. In between flap surgery, a dermal substitute (Integra(®)) was applied, attempting to cover the exposed tibias with a layer of soft tissue, but also without success. In order to promote the development of granulation tissue over the exposed bone, small holes were drilled in both tibias with removal of the outer layer of the anterior cortex causing the bone to bleed and subsequently negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was applied. The limited granulation tissue resulting from this procedure was then covered with a dermal substitute (Glyaderm(®)), consisting of acellular human dermis with an average thickness of 0.25mm. This dermal substitute was combined with a NPWT-dressing, and then served as an extracellular matrix (ECM), guiding the distribution of granulation tissue over the remaining areas of exposed tibial bone. Four days after initial application of Glyaderm(®) combined with NPWT both tibias were almost completely covered with a thin coating of soft tissue. In order to increase the thickness of this soft tissue cover two additional layers of Glyaderm(®) were applied at intervals of approximately 1 week. One week after the last Glyaderm(®) application both wounds were autografted. The combination of an acellular dermal substitute (Glyaderm(®)) with negative pressure wound therapy and skin grafting proved to be an efficient technique to cover a wider area of exposed tibial bone in a patient who was not a candidate for free flap surgery. An overview is also provided of newer and simpler techniques for coverage of exposed bone that could question the universal plastic surgery paradigm that flap surgery is the only way to cover these defects.

Glyaderm(®) dermal substitute: clinical application and long-term results in 55 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Glycerol preserved acellular dermis (Glyaderm(®)) consists of collagen and elastin fibers and is the first non-profit dermal substitute derived from glycerol-preserved, human allogeneic skin. It is indicated for bi-layered skin reconstruction of full thickness wounds. METHODS: A protocol for clinical application and optimal interval before autografting with split thickness skin graft (STSG) was developed in a pilot study. A phase III randomized, controlled, paired, intra-individual study compared full thickness defects engrafted with Glyaderm(®) and STSG versus STSG alone. Outcome measures included percentage of Glyaderm(®) take, STSG take, and scar quality assessment. RESULTS: Pilot study (27 patients): Mean take rates equaled 91.55% for Glyaderm(®) and 96.67% for STSG. The optimal autografting interval was 6 days (±1 day). Randomized trial (28 patients): Mean Glyaderm(®) take rate was 88.17%. STSG take rates were comparable for both research groups (p=0.588). One year after wound closure, Glyaderm(®)+STSG was significantly more elastic (p=0.003) than STSG alone. Blinded observers scored Glyaderm(®) treated wounds better in terms of scar quality. DISCUSSION: The efficacy of Glyaderm(®) as a suitable dermal substitute for full thickness wounds is attested. Currently a procedure for simultaneous application of Glyaderm(®) and STSG is adopted, allowing for further widespread use of Glyaderm(®).

A new, fast LDI for assessment of burns: a multi-centre clinical evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) provides early accurate determination of wound healing potential. LDI can scan large areas of up to 2500 cm2 within 2 min. This duration may require additional sedation in a mobile, uncooperative child. In five burn centres a faster Laser Doppler Line Scanner (LDLS) was assessed. This new imager scans 300 cm2 in 4s with potential benefit for patients and operators. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and convenience of the LDLS and to compare this with an established LDI imager. METHODS: Outpatients and admitted patients were included. LDI and LDLS images were obtained between 2 and 5 days post burn (PB). Photographs and records of wound and healing were obtained on day of scan and at 14 and 21 days PB. This provided data on three categories of burn wounds: healing within 14 days, 14-21 days and not healed within 21 days. RESULTS: The analysis included 596 burn areas from 204 burns patients. An accuracy of 94.2% was found with use of the LDLS compared with 94.4% for the original LDI imager. CONCLUSIONS: The high accuracy of the new line-scan imager was comparable to that of the traditional LDI. Its size and mobility enabled easier ward and outpatient use. The higher scan speed was particularly beneficial for scans in paediatric patients.

Aquacel(®) Ag dressing versus Acticoat™ dressing in partial thickness burns: a prospective, randomized, controlled study in 100 patients. Part 1: burn wound healing.

INTRODUCTION: Studies comparing contemporary silver dressings in burns are scarce. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, controlled study, counting 50 patients/research group, we compared two frequently used silver dressings, Acticoat™ and Aquacel(®) Ag, in the management of partial thickness burns with a predicted healing time between 7 and 21 days as assessed by laser Doppler imaging between 48 and 72h after burn. Variables investigated were related to baseline research group characteristics, wound healing, bacteriology, economics, nurse, and patient experience. RESULTS: Both research groups were comparably composed taking into account gender, age and burn characteristics. Similar results were obtained as to healing time and bacterial control with both silver dressings. A statistically significant difference in favor of the Aquacel(®) Ag dressing was found for average ease of use (p<0.001), average ease of application (p=0.001), patient pain (p<0.001), patient comfort with the dressing (p=0.017), silver staining (p<0.001), and cost effectiveness (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both silver dressings resulted in comparable healing times and bacterial control but the Aquacel(®) Ag dressing significantly increased comfort for patients as well as nurses and was significantly more cost-effective than the Acticoat™ dressing for the given indication.

Scar management by means of occlusion and hydration: a comparative study of silicones versus a hydrating gel-cream.

Despite the worldwide use of silicones in scar management, its exact working mechanism based on a balanced occlusion and hydration, is still not completely elucidated. Moreover, it seems peculiar that silicones with completely different occlusive and hydrating properties still could provide a similar therapeutic effect. The objective of the first part of this study was to compare the occlusive and hydrating properties of three fluid silicone gels and a hydrating gel-cream. In a second part of the study these results were compared with those of silicone gel sheets. Tape stripped skin was used as a standardized scar like model on both forearms of 40 healthy volunteers. At specific times, trans epidermal water loss (TEWL) and the hydration state of the stratum corneum were measured and compared with intact skin and a scar-like control over a 3-4h period. Our study clearly demonstrated that fluid silicone gels and a hydrating gel-cream have comparable occlusive and hydrating properties while silicone gel sheets are much more occlusive, reducing TEWL values far below those of normal skin. A well-balanced, hydrating gel-cream can provide the same occlusive and hydrating properties as fluid silicone gels, suggesting that it could eventually replace silicones in scar treatment.

A comparative study of 1% silver sulphadiazine (Flammazine®) versus an enzyme alginogel (Flaminal®) in the treatment of partial thickness burns.

INTRODUCTION: In the conservative treatment of burns, rapid wound healing is desirable to obtain good a esthetic and functional results. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 1% Silversulfadiazine (SSD/Flammazine(®)) and an enzyme alginogel (Flaminal(®) or Flaminal(®) Forte) on the healing of superficial and intermediate partial thickness burns. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study comparable burn wounds treated with Flaminal(®) or with 1% SSD were included. Outcome parameters included: length of hospital stay, bacterial burden and time to wound closure. Significance was tested using SPSS package. RESULTS: 44 wounds in the Flaminal(®) group, and 39 wounds in the 1% SSD group were included. Wounds treated with Flaminal(®) showed a significantly higher bacterial load (p=0.024) and contained significantly more bacterial species (p=0.010) but showed a significantly shorter healing time of 17 vs. 24 days (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: A significantly shorter healing time was demonstrated in partial thickness burn wounds treated with Flaminal(®) versus 1% SSD, which may lead to a shorter length of hospital stay and better scar quality. The possibility of accurate burn depth assessment and the results in this study corroborate the change in treatment protocol made in the year 2000 when we switched from 1% SSD to Flaminal(®).