A silver-coated antimicrobial barrier dressing used postoperatively on meshed autografts: a dressing comparison study.

In an effort to optimize the management of freshly grafted burn wounds, a silver-coated, low-adherence dressing, Acticoat (Smith & Nephew Inc., Largo, FL), was compared with 5% sulfamylon-soaked Exu-Dry burn wound dressings. Twenty subjects admitted to the Loyola University Medical Center were randomized to either Acticoat dressings or 5% sulfamylon-soaked burn wound dressings. Dressings were applied immediately after grafting in the operating room. Acticoat dressings were left in place for 3 days and then changed every 3 days thereafter. Sulfamylon-soaked dressings were changed at 48 hours and then every day. Subjects continued to have dressing changes on a twice-daily basis to wounds that were not grafted managed. Subjects were assessed for graft take, time to wound healing, and the number of dressings required until healing. Hospital charges and labor costs were retrospectively tabulated, yielding an expense estimate for each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, %TBSA, %TBSA of the grafted test sites, graft take, time to graft healing, or infectious complications. The median number of dressing changes to the test site was significantly less in the Acticoat group (P < .05). The average expense per dressing change was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the average total expense per patient was significantly lower for the Acticoat group because of the reduced number of dressing changes. Acticoat and 5% sulfamylon-soaked burn wound dressings were equivalent with respect to wound healing and infectious complications. The use of Acticoat was found to be a safe alternative to the use of 5% sulfamylon as a postsurgical dressing in this group of subjects. Because of the reduced number of dressing changes, the use of Acticoat was a less expensive alternative to 5% sulfamylon dressing changes in this study.