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.

Influence of Moisturizers on Skin Microcirculation: An Assessment Study Using Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging.

Non-invasive scar management typically involves pressure therapy, hydration with silicones or moisturizers, and UV protection. Moisture loss from scars can lead to hypertrophic scar formation. Pressure therapy reduces blood flow, fibroblast activity, and transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-ß1) release. This study examined various moisturizers and liquid silicone gel's impact on microcirculation. 40 volunteers participated in a study where superficial abrasions were created to induce trans epidermal water loss (TEWL). Five moisturizers (TEDRA®, TEDRA® NT1, TEDRA® NT3, Alhydran®, Lipikar®) and BAP Scar Care® silicone gel were tested. TEWL, hydration, and blood flow were measured up to 4 h post-application. Results showed that silicone had the least impact on occlusion and hydration. Alhydran® reduced blood flow the most, while Lipikar® increased it the most. TEDRA® NT1 had reduced flow compared to TEDRA® and TEDRA® NT3. All TEDRA® products exhibited high hydration, and all but silicone showed good occlusion. Moisturizers influenced skin microcirculation, with some causing decrease, while others increased flow. However, the clinical impact on scarring remains unclear compared to the evident effects of hydration and occlusion. More research is necessary to study moisturizers alone and with pressure therapy on scars, along with potential adverse effects of increased microcirculation on scars.

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).