Hypertrophic scar management.

Scarring has major psychological and physical repercussions. Scars are often considered trivial, but they can be disfiguring and aesthetically unpleasant and may cause severe itching, tenderness, pain, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression and disruption of daily activities. It is more efficient to prevent hypertrophic scars than treat them; early diagnosis of a problem scar can considerably impact the overall outcome. Therefore, nurses need to be as knowledgeable about scar products as they are about wound products, and their responsibility should not end once the wound has healed. Appropriate management of the scar will ensure that the wound remains healed and that the patient is happy with the outcome. The nurse is ideally placed to ensure that scars are appropriately identified and treated as early as possible.

Cohort study evaluating management of burns in the community in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health outcomes, resource use and corresponding costs attributable to managing burns in clinical practice, from initial presentation, among a cohort of adults in the UK. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of the records of a randomly selected cohort of 260 patients from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database who had 294 evaluable burns. SETTING: Primary and secondary care sectors in the UK. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' characteristics, wound-related health outcomes, healthcare resource use and total National Health Service (NHS) cost of patient management. RESULTS: Diagnosis was incomplete in 63% of patients' records as the location, depth and size of the burns were missing. Overall, 70% of all the burns healed within 24 months and the time to healing was a mean of 7.8 months per burn. Sixty-six per cent of burns were initially managed in the community and the other 34% were managed at accident and emergency departments. Patients' wounds were subsequently managed predominantly by practice nurses and hospital outpatient clinics. Forty-five per cent of burns had no documented dressings in the patients' records. The mean NHS cost of wound care in clinical practice over 24 months from initial presentation was an estimated £16 924 per burn, ranging from £12 002 to £40 577 for a healed and unhealed wound, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Due to incomplete documentation in the patients' records, it is difficult to say whether the time to healing was excessive or what other confounding factors may have contributed to the delayed healing. This study indicates the need for education of general practice clinicians on the management and care of burn wounds. Furthermore, it is beholden on the burns community to determine how the poor healing rates can be improved. Strategies are required to improve documentation in patients' records, integration of care between different providers, wound healing rates and reducing infection.

Role of slough and biofilm in delaying healing in chronic wounds.

The management of biofilms with maintenance desloughing and antimicrobial therapy is fast becoming the accepted treatment strategy for chronic wounds.

Antiseptics for burns.

BACKGROUND: Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after initial resuscitation) result from infection. Antiseptics are topical agents that act to prevent growth of micro-organisms. A wide range are used with the intention of preventing infection and promoting healing of burn wounds. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of antiseptics for the treatment of burns in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any burn wound and assessed the use of a topical treatment with antiseptic properties. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 RCTs with 5807 randomised participants. Almost all trials had poorly reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. In many cases the primary review outcomes, wound healing and infection, were not reported, or were reported incompletely.Most trials enrolled people with recent burns, described as second-degree and less than 40% of total body surface area; most participants were adults. Antiseptic agents assessed were: silver-based, honey, Aloe Vera, iodine-based, chlorhexidine or polyhexanide (biguanides), sodium hypochlorite, merbromin, ethacridine lactate, cerium nitrate and Arnebia euchroma. Most studies compared antiseptic with a topical antibiotic, primarily silver sulfadiazine (SSD); others compared antiseptic with a non-antibacterial treatment or another antiseptic. Most evidence was assessed as low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, often in single studies. Antiseptics versus topical antibioticsCompared with the topical antibiotic, SSD, there is low certainty evidence that, on average, there is no clear difference in the hazard of healing (chance of healing over time), between silver-based antiseptics and SSD (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; 259 participants); silver-based antiseptics may, on average, increase the number of healing events over 21 or 28 days' follow-up (RR 1.17 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37; I2 = 45%; 5 studies; 408 participants) and may, on average, reduce mean time to healing (difference in means -3.33 days; 95% CI -4.96 to -1.70; I2 = 87%; 10 studies; 979 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with honey are probably more likely to heal over time compared with topical antibiotics (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52; I2 = 66%; 5 studies; 140 participants).There is low certainty evidence from single trials that sodium hypochlorite may, on average, slightly reduce mean time to healing compared with SSD (difference in means -2.10 days, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.33, 10 participants (20 burns)) as may merbromin compared with zinc sulfadiazine (difference in means -3.48 days, 95% CI -6.85 to -0.11, 50 relevant participants). Other comparisons with low or very low certainty evidence did not find clear differences between groups.Most comparisons did not report data on infection. Based on the available data we cannot be certain if antiseptic treatments increase or reduce the risk of infection compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty evidence). Antiseptics versus alternative antisepticsThere may be some reduction in mean time to healing for wounds treated with povidone iodine compared with chlorhexidine (MD -2.21 days, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.08). Other evidence showed no clear differences and is of low or very low certainty. Antiseptics versus non-antibacterial comparatorsWe found high certainty evidence that treating burns with honey, on average, reduced mean times to healing in comparison with non-antibacterial treatments (difference in means -5.3 days, 95% CI -6.30 to -4.34; I2 = 71%; 4 studies; 1156 participants) but this comparison included some unconventional treatments such as amniotic membrane and potato peel. There is moderate certainty evidence that honey probably also increases the likelihood of wounds healing over time compared to unconventional anti-bacterial treatments (HR 2.86, 95% C 1.60 to 5.11; I2 = 50%; 2 studies; 154 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings probably have a slightly shorter mean time to healing than those treated with Vaseline gauze (difference in means -3.49 days, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.52; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 204 participants), but low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference in numbers of healing events at 14 days between burns treated with silver xenograft or paraffin gauze (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16 1 study; 32 participants). Other comparisons represented low or very low certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether infection rates in burns treated with either silver-based antiseptics or honey differ compared with non-antimicrobial treatments (very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in infection rates between an iodine-based treatment compared with moist exposed burn ointment (moderate certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether infection rates differ for SSD plus cerium nitrate, compared with SSD alone (low certainty evidence).Mortality was low where reported. Most comparisons provided low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between many treatments. There may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus SSD compared with SSD alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 214 participants) (low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It was often uncertain whether antiseptics were associated with any difference in healing, infections, or other outcomes. Where there is moderate or high certainty evidence, decision makers need to consider the applicability of the evidence from the comparison to their patients. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias.

Hand burn management: minimising pain and trauma at dressing change.

The aim of wound management in hand burn injuries is to restore function and prevent problem scars, so a key consideration in wound healing is the removal of dressings without causing pain and further trauma as well as preserving function. Conventionally, wound dressings such as paraffin gauze were used for burn injuries, but this led to pain and trauma on removal, as well as drying out. This study looks at the use of Mepitel® One on hand burns; this dressing incorporates all the benefits of Mepitel, however, it only has Safetac technology on the wound contact side, allowing easy handling and application.

Do illness perceptions and mood predict healing time for burn wounds? a prospective, preliminary study.

UNLABELLED: Some burn wounds take longer to heal than others, but this cannot be fully explained by physical factors such as burn size and depth. Research interest has therefore focussed on the potential contribution of psychological factors, such as perception of the burn and distress, to the wound healing process. OBJECTIVES: Using the framework of Leventhal's Common-Sense Model, we investigated whether patients' perceptions of their burn wounds and distress contributed to healing time, and whether this was via the mediating role of adherence to treatment recommendations. METHOD: Seventy-two adult burn-injured outpatients completed questionnaire measures of burn perceptions (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), trauma symptoms (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and appearance concerns (Derriford Appearance Scale-24). Burn characteristics, healing time and adherence data were taken from clinic notes. RESULTS: Distress, trauma symptoms and appearance concerns were positively correlated with negative burn perceptions. In regression analysis, burn perceptions added significantly to the prediction of burn healing time after age, medical factors and burn characteristics had been controlled for. Adherence measures were not significantly correlated with burns perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that patients' perceptions of their burns contribute to healing time. Further research on the mechanisms of this association is warranted.

Hydrogels and their potential uses in burn wound management.

Hydrogels are recognized as the standard treatment for necrotic or sloughy wounds. Autolytic debridement of devitalized tissue is essential to promote wound healing; this depends on the whole area being kept moist so that natural enzymatic reactions can take place. Hydrogels are considered to be gentle debriders, promoting rehydration of non-viable tissues. Hydrosorb and Hydrosorb Comfort are hydrocellular gel dressings that are made from 60% water and are therefore suitable for keeping granulation tissue and young epithelium moist. Additionally, Hydrosorb provides a cushioning effect for wound protection, and has a soothing and cooling effect on superficial burns. For some patients with burns, such as the elderly, Hydrosorb can be applied to speed up the process of debridement where surgery is not an option; a case study is given to show the effective healing process.

The use of Silflex in burn wound management.

This article presents three case studies looking at the effective use of an atraumatic wound dressing: Silflex (Advancis Medical). Pain is known to be very debilitating in patients with burns and frequent dressing changes can pose a painful problem. The case studies, presented here, support the view that Silflex, a silicone-based conformable dressing, is a useful adjunct when treating superficial burns.

Management of skin grafts and donor sites.

Jacky Edwards discusses the management of skin grafts and donor sites, together with the management of these patients in the community and long-term outcomes.

Scar management.

Scarring has major psychological and physical repercussions--for example, scarring on the face and visible regions of the body can be very distressing for the patient, whether it is simple acne scars or large, raised surgical or traumatic scars. This article discusses the process of scar formation, the differences between scars and proposes a number of ways in which the nurse can manage scars.