2018Zagazig University Medical JournalOpen access

EARLY BURN WOUND MANAGEMENT; WOUND MEMBRANES (ACTICOATTM) VERSUS STANDARD SILVER SULFADIAZINE (DERMAZINETM)

Author information unavailable

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Background: Burn wound infection is one of the most frequent and major complications in patients with burn injuries and is the main cause for prolonged in-hospital stay and death in cases of wide-spread infection. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of semipermeable membranes( ActicoatTM) in deep partial thickness burns in comparison to standard care silver sulfadiazine DermazineTM . Patients and methods: In a prospective study design included n=30 severely injured patients with superficial to deep partial thickness burns they were randomized into two groups, group A (ActicoatTM) (n=15) and group B receiving treatment with standard silver sulfadiazine (DermazineTM) (n = 15) .The outcome measures were pain ,temperature , time of wound healing, and Scar quality. Results: There were significant differences between the two groups. Regard to, time to re-epithelialization and Scar quality in favor of (ActicoatTM) treatment group versus (DermazineTM) group (p < 0.005) Conclusion: In this study, we demonstrated that the choice of medication or membrane for a burn wound is a never-ending source of discussion and fortunately, most medications (DermazineTM) and membranes (ActicoatTM) perform well if physicians carefully monitor wounds, keep them clean, prevent desiccation, and properly manage secondary infection.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Background: Burn wound infection is one of the most frequent and major complications in patients with burn injuries and is the main cause for prolonged in-hospital stay and death in cases of wide-spread infection. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of semipermeable membranes( ActicoatTM) in deep partial thickness burns in comparison to standard care silver sulfadiazine DermazineTM . Patients and methods: In a prospective study design included n=30 severely injured patients with superficial to deep partial thickness burns they were randomized into two groups, group A (ActicoatTM) (n=15) and group B receiving treatment with standard silver sulfadiazine (DermazineTM) (n = 15) .The outcome measures were pain ,temperature , time of wound healing, and Scar quality. Results: There were significant differences between the two groups. Regard to, time to re-epithelialization and Scar quality in favor of (ActicoatTM) treatment group versus (DermazineTM) group (p < 0.005) Conclusion: In this study, we demonstrated that the choice of medication or membrane for a burn wound is a never-ending source of discussion and fortunately, most medications (DermazineTM) and membranes (ActicoatTM) perform well if physicians carefully monitor wounds, keep them clean, prevent desiccation, and properly manage secondary infection.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Background: Burn wound infection is one of the most frequent and major complications in patients with burn injuries and is the main cause for prolonged in-hospital stay and death in cases of wide-spread infection. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of semipermeable membranes( ActicoatTM) in deep partial thickness burns in comparison to standard care silver sulfadiazine DermazineTM . Patients and methods: In a prospective study design included n=30 severely injured patients with superficial to deep partial thickness burns they were randomized into two groups, group A (ActicoatTM) (n=15) and group B receiving treatment with standard silver sulfadiazine (DermazineTM) (n = 15) .The outcome measures were pain ,temperature , time of wound healing, and Scar quality. Results: There were significant differences between the two groups. Regard to, time to re-epithelialization and Scar quality in favor of (ActicoatTM) treatment group versus (DermazineTM) group (p < 0.005) Conclusion: In this study, we demonstrated that the choice of medication or membrane for a burn wound is a never-ending source of discussion and fortunately, most medications (DermazineTM) and membranes (ActicoatTM) perform well if physicians carefully monitor wounds, keep them clean, prevent desiccation, and properly manage secondary infection.

Key concepts: Silver sulfadiazine, Medicine, Burn wound, Sulfadiazine, Wound healing, Surgery, Microbiology, Antibiotics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
EARLY BURN WOUND MANAGEMENT; WOUND MEMBRANES (ACTICOATTM) VERSUS STANDARD SILVER SULFADIAZINE (DERMAZINETM) — Research Paper | ScholarLens