BACTERIAL NANOCELLULOSE DRESSING COMPARED WITH HYDROCOLLOID DRESSING FOR THE TREATMENT OF PARTIAL-THICKNESS SECOND-DEGREE BURNS: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL.

Annals of burns and fire disasters Pub Date : 2024-09-30 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01
M Rehan, T Iqbal, M H Tariq, M S Khan, Q Tul Ain, M U Sarwar, U Waheed
{"title":"BACTERIAL NANOCELLULOSE DRESSING COMPARED WITH HYDROCOLLOID DRESSING FOR THE TREATMENT OF PARTIAL-THICKNESS SECOND-DEGREE BURNS: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL.","authors":"M Rehan, T Iqbal, M H Tariq, M S Khan, Q Tul Ain, M U Sarwar, U Waheed","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The management of burn wounds is a major challenge throughout the globe. Superficial and partial-thickness burns generally do not need any surgical intervention, however, severe cases of burn injury require dressings (antimicrobial) and surgery in the worst-case scenario. The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy of bacterial nanocellulose dressing versus hydrocolloid dressing. All patients presenting with partial-thickness second-degree burns from June 2021 to May 2022 were screened for this randomized control trial; 65 burn patients were included in each group of this trial. The control group of patients was treated with hydrocolloid dressing and the experimental group with bacterial nanocellulose dressing sheets. Every third day, the wound was assessed. Other data collected included age, sex, %TBSA burned, signs of infection, time for epithelialization, and length of hospital stay. Statistical analyses were performed to see the significance of differences between the treatment groups by adjusting for size and depth of burn, and the patient's age. There were 130 patients (65 in each group). The median age for the whole group was 17.4 years, and 51.53% (n=67) were males. The average TBSA was 22.4%, with a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 31%. Eleven of the patients had their burns excised, and four were given skin grafts in the control group. In the case of the experimental group, four excisions were performed, and one skin graft. Wound-related pain scores were low (mean of 2.6) for the bacterial nanocellulose group and higher for the hydrocolloid group. Hydrocolloid dressing is more cost effective than bacterial nanocellulose dressing. However, the pain scores were high, and healing time was less in the bacterial nanocellulose group. Moreover, the hydrocolloid group is more prone to infection due to frequent dressing changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":93873,"journal":{"name":"Annals of burns and fire disasters","volume":"37 3","pages":"226-232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11372272/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of burns and fire disasters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The management of burn wounds is a major challenge throughout the globe. Superficial and partial-thickness burns generally do not need any surgical intervention, however, severe cases of burn injury require dressings (antimicrobial) and surgery in the worst-case scenario. The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy of bacterial nanocellulose dressing versus hydrocolloid dressing. All patients presenting with partial-thickness second-degree burns from June 2021 to May 2022 were screened for this randomized control trial; 65 burn patients were included in each group of this trial. The control group of patients was treated with hydrocolloid dressing and the experimental group with bacterial nanocellulose dressing sheets. Every third day, the wound was assessed. Other data collected included age, sex, %TBSA burned, signs of infection, time for epithelialization, and length of hospital stay. Statistical analyses were performed to see the significance of differences between the treatment groups by adjusting for size and depth of burn, and the patient's age. There were 130 patients (65 in each group). The median age for the whole group was 17.4 years, and 51.53% (n=67) were males. The average TBSA was 22.4%, with a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 31%. Eleven of the patients had their burns excised, and four were given skin grafts in the control group. In the case of the experimental group, four excisions were performed, and one skin graft. Wound-related pain scores were low (mean of 2.6) for the bacterial nanocellulose group and higher for the hydrocolloid group. Hydrocolloid dressing is more cost effective than bacterial nanocellulose dressing. However, the pain scores were high, and healing time was less in the bacterial nanocellulose group. Moreover, the hydrocolloid group is more prone to infection due to frequent dressing changes.

细菌性纳米纤维素敷料与水胶体敷料治疗局部二度烧伤的比较:前瞻性随机对照试验。
烧伤创面的处理是全球面临的一大挑战。浅表和部分厚度烧伤一般不需要任何手术干预,但严重的烧伤需要包扎(抗菌),最坏的情况下还需要手术。本研究旨在评估纳米纤维素细菌敷料与水胶体敷料的疗效。这项随机对照试验筛选了 2021 年 6 月至 2022 年 5 月期间的所有局部二度烧伤患者,每组 65 名烧伤患者。对照组患者使用水胶体敷料,实验组患者使用纳米纤维素细菌敷料片。每隔三天对伤口进行一次评估。收集的其他数据包括年龄、性别、烧伤的 TBSA 百分比、感染迹象、上皮化时间和住院时间。通过调整烧伤面积、深度和患者年龄,对治疗组之间的差异进行了统计分析,以确定差异的显著性。共有 130 名患者(每组 65 人)接受了治疗。全组年龄中位数为 17.4 岁,51.53%(n=67)为男性。平均总面积为 22.4%,最小为 10%,最大为 31%。对照组中有 11 名患者的烧伤被切除,4 名患者接受了植皮手术。实验组则进行了四次切除,一次植皮。纳米纤维素细菌组的伤口疼痛评分较低(平均为 2.6 分),而水胶体组的伤口疼痛评分较高。水胶体敷料比纳米纤维素细菌敷料更具成本效益。不过,纳米细菌纤维素组的疼痛评分较高,愈合时间较短。此外,由于频繁更换敷料,水胶体组更容易发生感染。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信