Schulz A, Depner C, Lefering R, Kricheldorff J, Kästner S, Fuchs PC, Demir E, et al.
Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries. Date of publication 2016 Mar 1;volume 42(2):345-55.
1. Burns. 2016 Mar;42(2):345-55. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2014.12.016. Epub 2015 Feb 24.
A prospective clinical trial comparing Biobrane(®) Dressilk(®) and PolyMem(®)
dressings on partial-thickness skin graft donor sites.
Schulz A(1), Depner C(2), Lefering R(3), Kricheldorff J(4), Kästner S(4), Fuchs
PC(4), Demir E(4).
Author information:
(1)Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand Surgery, Burn Center, University of
Witten/Herdecke, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center (CMMC), Cologne, Germany.
Electronic address: schulza@kliniken-koeln.de.
(2)Artemedic AG, Clinic for Plastic Surgery, Zurich, Switzerland.
(3)IFOM, University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center (CMMC),
Cologne, Germany.
(4)Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand Surgery, Burn Center, University of
Witten/Herdecke, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center (CMMC), Cologne, Germany.
Comment in
Burns. 2016 Aug;42(5):1152.
Burns. 2016 Aug;42(5):1151-1152.
INTRODUCTION: In a single-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial three
different configured wound dressings Biobrane(®), Dressilk(®) and PolyMem(®) were
compared with each other regarding objective and subjective healing parameters
and cost efficiency.
METHODS: 28 burn patients received surgical treatment with split-thickness skin
grafting, while utilizing Biobrane(®), Dressilk(®) and PolyMem(®) as a single
bound donor site wound dressing in all patients. Following a standardized case
report form, we monitored several parameters such as pain, transparency of the
dressing, active bleeding, exudation and inflammation by using the Verbal Rating
Scale 1-10 through out.
RESULTS: With regard to re-epithelialization, pain and acute bleeding all three
dressings were equivalent. Dressilk(®) and Biobrane(®) presented clearly superior
to PolyMem(®) in both wound assessment and in the reduction of mild inflammation
and exudation. High subjective satisfaction rates were reported with Dressilk(®)
and Biobrane(®) dressings in regard to comfort and mobility. During the
continuous monitoring period Biobrane(®) outperformed Dressilk(®) by providing
higher wound transparency rates and offering a better level of wound control
during the entire study period. Regarding their cost efficiency, PolyMem(®) and
Dressilk(®) are clearly superior to Biobrane(®).
CONCLUSION: The "ideal" wound dressing maximizes patients' comfort while reducing
pain and the risk of pulling off migrating epidermal cells from the wound
surface. In addition reliable wound status evaluation (minimizing complications),
an increase of treatment cost value efficacy, and reduced hospitalization rates
should be provided. Dressilk(®) and Biobrane(®) were favored by patients and
surgeons for providing an effective and safe healing environment, with overall
low complication rates with respect to infection and exudation. Regarding
cost-effectiveness PolyMem(®) and Dressilk(®) presented superior to Biobrane(®).
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2014.12.016
PMID: 25720659 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
