WoundReference improves clinical decisions
 Choose the role that best describes you
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]
Appears in following Topics:
Cellular and/or Tissue Based Products