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).

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.

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.

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.