Safety of enzymatic debridement in extensive burns larger than 15% total body surface area.

OBJECTIVES: Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement has emerged as an alternative to surgical eschar removal. Indications include partial thickness, mixed pattern, and full-thickness burns. Enzymatic debridement has been approved by the European Medicines Agency for treating burn wounds affecting <15% total body surface area (TBSA). Data and evidence for the treatment of areas >15% TBSA in one session is scarce. The aim of this retrospective study was to retrospectively analyze off-label use of enzymatic debridement in a single burn center for large TBSA burns. METHODS: Between 01/2017 and 12/2018, 59 patients with partial- to full-thickness burns underwent enzymatic debridement in a single center study. Patients were categorized into two groups: the regular use group with a treated area less than 15% TBSA and the off-label group (OG) with larger TBSA debrided in one session. Treatment was evaluated for systemic inflammatory reaction, bleeding, hemodynamic instability and electrolyte shifts. RESULTS: In total, 49 patients were treated in the regular use group with a median application area of 6% (IQR 2.5-9.5) and 10 patients were treated in the off-label group with a median application area of 18% (IQR 15-19) TBSA. We found no significant differences regarding blood pressure, body temperature or hemodynamic stability during and after enzymatic debridement. No treatment-related serious adverse events were observed in either group. Catecholamine use was similar in both groups. No differences in leukocyte counts, CRP, PCT and lactate prior to application and during the following three days were observed. Sodium, potassium, chloride and phosphate levels did not differ. We found no evidence of an electrolyte shift. Survival was 49 of 49 patients (100%) in the RG and 7 of 10 patients (70%) in the OG (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Enzymatic debridement did not result in any expected or unexpected side effects in the patient groups investigated. These preliminary results indicate the potential safety of bromelain-based enzymatic debridementin the treatment of burns greater than 15% TBSA.

Efficacy of Maggot Therapy on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the antimicrobial effects of medicinal maggots of Lucilia sericata on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 50 adult patients from the clinic of the Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran. All participants who had at least 1 DFU present for at least 12 weeks, an arterial brachial index value of more than 0.6, and a hemoglobin A1c value of less than 8% were included in this study. METHODS: Subjects were randomly selected for the maggot-treated (treatment) or conventional treatment (control) group. Conventional treatments such as antibiotic therapy, debridement, and offloading were done for both groups, but maggot therapy (MT) was added to the protocol of the treatment group. Bacterial burden was monitored and compared for both groups using cultures collected using swab technique. Wound secretions were measured and compared in both groups. RESULTS: The number of infected cases with S aureus in the treatment group was significantly reduced after 48 hours in comparison with the control group (P = .047). The number of infected cases with P aeruginosa was significantly reduced after 96 hours (P = .002). We also found that wound secretions in the treatment group were significantly higher than in the control group (P < .00). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that MT is a safe and efficacious treatment of DFUs.

Terapia larval. Caso clínico en atención domiciliaria / Maggot therapy: case study in home care

Introducción. La terapia larval es un método de preparación del lecho de la herida de utilización ancestral. Su uso quedó relegado con la aparición de los antibióticos, hasta nuestros días, donde está resurgiendo como opción en el tratamiento de heridas crónicas. Metodología. Presentamos un caso clínico, donde una herida en pie diabético de seis meses de evolución tórpida y con varios cambios de tratamiento poco efectivos mejora en 3-4 días tras la utilización de terapia larval en el domicilio. El lecho de la herida queda preparado para el proceso de granulación. Resultados. Se puede apreciar cómo, tras cuatro días de tratamiento con la terapia larval, el lecho de la herida queda libre de esfacelos y disminuye también el exudado y el edema. Se consigue una herida en óptimas condiciones para la cicatrización. Se objetivó, aplicando la escala EVA, una clara disminución del dolor tras la terapia. Se demostró que la terapia larval puede utilizarse en atención domiciliaria o comunitaria sin inconvenientes. Conclusión. La terapia larval es un método de desbridamiento rápido, efectivo y seguro, que se puede aplicar en el domicilio del usuario (AU)

Introduction. Maggot therapy is a wound bed preparation method of ancestral use. Its use was relegated with the emergence of antibiotics, until today, where is reemerging as an option in the treatment of chronic wounds. Methodology. We report a case study where a six months wound in diabetic foot with torpid evolution and with several changes of ineffective treatment, improved in 3-4 days after the use of maggot therapy at home; leaving the wound bed prepared for the process of granulation. Results. As could see, after four days from the application of maggot therapy, the wound bed was free of slough, also decreasing exudation and edema. Leaving the optimal conditions for wound healing. It was assessed by the VAS scale decreased pain after dressing changes. It was demonstrated that maggot therapy can be used in home or community care without inconvenience. Conclusion. The maggot therapy is a method of debridement fast, effective and safe, this method can be used in home care (AU)

The 6-Hour Rule for Surgical Debridement of Open Tibial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Infection and Nonunion Rates.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing early (<6 hours) versus late (>6 hours) surgical debridement of open tibial fractures, with regards to infection and nonunion rates. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1961 to present), Allied and Complementary Medicine, and COCHRANE databases was conducted using any combination of the key words: "open," "tibial," and "fractures." After appropriate screening, 7 studies were included for analysis. Inclusion criteria were studies assessing the relation between time to debridement from injury and infection and/or nonunion rates. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 365) evaluated overall infection rates that varied from 7.7% to 8.9% in the early group versus 1%-18.5% in the late group. Three studies (n = 197) evaluated deep infection rates that varied from 13% to 18.5% in the early group versus 7.1%-18.6% in the late group. Four studies (n = 245) evaluated nonunion rates that varied from 13.2% to 26.1% in the early group versus 0%-32.6% in the late group. Meta-analysis showed no statistical difference between groups with regards to overall infection rates (risk ratio = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.54-3.23; P = 0.55), deep infection rates (risk ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.48-2.07; P = 0.98), and nonunion rates (risk ratio = 1.49; 95% CI, 0.64-3.49; P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The available literature suggests that there is no obvious difference in the overall/deep infection and nonunion rates between open tibial fractures debrided within 6 hours and those debrided at more than 6 hours. The findings presented here would appear to indicate that judicious delays of greater than 6 hours may not result in a significantly increased risk of adverse events or peri-operative morbidity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Triaging and Treatment of Cold-Induced Injuries.

BACKGROUND: In Central Europe, cold-induced injuries are much less common than burns. In a burn center in western Germany, the mean ratio of these two types of injury over the past 10 years was 1 to 35. Because cold-induced injuries are so rare, physicians often do not know how to deal with them. METHODS: This article is based on a review of publications (up to December 2014) retrieved by a selective search in PubMed using the terms "freezing," "frostbite injury," "non-freezing cold injury," and "frostbite review," as well as on the authors' clinical experience. RESULTS: Freezing and cold-induced trauma are part of the treatment spectrum in burn centers. The treatment of cold-induced injuries is not standardized and is based largely on case reports and observations of use. distinction is drawn between non-freezing injuries, in which there is a slow temperature drop in tissue without freezing, and freezing injuries in which ice crystals form in tissue. In all cases of cold-induced injury, the patient should be slowly warmed to 22°-27°C to prevent reperfusion injury. Freezing injuries are treated with warming of the body's core temperature and with the bathing of the affected body parts in warm water with added antiseptic agents. Any large or open vesicles that are already apparent should be debrided. To inhibit prostaglandin-mediated thrombosis, ibuprofen is given (12 mg/kg body weight b.i.d.). CONCLUSION: The treatment of cold-induced injuries is based on their type, severity, and timing. The recommendations above are grade C recommendations. The current approach to reperfusion has yielded promising initial results and should be further investigated in prospective studies.

Maggot débridement therapy in outpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the benefits, risks, and problems associated with outpatient maggot therapy. DESIGN: Descriptive case series, with survey. SETTING: Urban and rural clinics and homes. PARTICIPANTS: Seven caregivers with varying levels of formal health care training and 21 ambulatory patients (15 men, 6 women; average age, 63 yr) with nonhealing wounds. INTERVENTION: Maggot therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Therapists' opinions concerning clinical outcomes and the disadvantages of therapy. RESULTS: More than 95% of the therapists and 90% of their patients were satisfied with their outpatient maggot débridement therapy. Of the 8 patients who were advised to undergo amputation or major surgical débridement as an alternative to maggot débridement, only 3 required surgical resection (amputation) after maggot therapy. Maggot therapy completely or significantly débrided 18 (86%) of the wounds; 11 healed without any additional surgical procedures. There was anxiety about maggots escaping, but actual escapes were rare. Pain, reported by several patients, was controlled with oral analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient maggot débridement is safe, effective, and acceptable to most patients, even when administered by nonphysicians. Maggot débridement is a valuable and rational treatment option for many ambulatory, home-bound, and extended care patients who have nonhealing wounds.