Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Theruptor 3-D Composite Microbicidal Dressing in Comparison with Bactigras and Allevyn Dressings on Wound Healing in Participants with Chronic Infected Wounds: A Randomized, Multi-Centric, Comparative, Parallel-Group, Prospective Study.

IF 1.5
Mayank Badkur, Vinoth Sundaresan, Tharun Ganapathy, Tushar Mishra, Keshavamurthy Vinay, Michael Rodrigues, Ashok Kumar Moharana, Deepak Ts, Sakthibalan Murugesan, Mahalakshmi Durai, Shoban Babu Varthya
{"title":"Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Theruptor 3-D Composite Microbicidal Dressing in Comparison with Bactigras and Allevyn Dressings on Wound Healing in Participants with Chronic Infected Wounds: A Randomized, Multi-Centric, Comparative, Parallel-Group, Prospective Study.","authors":"Mayank Badkur, Vinoth Sundaresan, Tharun Ganapathy, Tushar Mishra, Keshavamurthy Vinay, Michael Rodrigues, Ashok Kumar Moharana, Deepak Ts, Sakthibalan Murugesan, Mahalakshmi Durai, Shoban Babu Varthya","doi":"10.1177/15347346251351460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundAdvanced wound care dressings are vital in managing the complexities of chronic wound treatment. For instance, Theruptor 3-D composite microbicidal dressing is designed with antimicrobial properties to promote wound healing. Despite the availability of several antimicrobial products in the market such as Bactigras, Allevyn, and Aquacel, their comparative efficacy remains unexplored. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of Theruptor versus Bactigras and Allevyn dressings for chronic wound healing.MethodsA randomized, parallel-group study was conducted from May 2022 to July 2024 across five centres in India. Patients with chronic wounds were randomized to allocate Theruptor, Bactigras, and Allevyn dressings (diabetic and non-diabetic etiology; n = 35 each). Wound area, bacterial load, clinical signs and symptoms, exudate management, and product performance were assessed.ResultsA total of 210 patients with chronic wound in the age range of 19-87 years, were recruited and followed up for 8 weeks. The mean wound area was significantly reduced from Day 0 to Day 56 in in diabetic Theruptor (17.35 ± 15.08 cm<sup>2</sup> vs 4.13 ± 10.56 cm<sup>2</sup>), Bactigras (12.93 ± 12.02 cm<sup>2</sup> vs 3.6 ± 7.75 cm<sup>2</sup>), and Allevyn (14.36 ± 9.97 cm<sup>2</sup> vs 0.74 ± 1.65 cm<sup>2</sup>) and non-diabetic Theruptor (20.45 ± 16.8 vs 3.01 ± 7.52 cm<sup>2</sup>), Bactigras (18.16 ± 14.81 vs 2.52 ± 5.48 cm<sup>2</sup>), and Allevyn (28.41 ± 19.97 vs 5.31 ± 9.94 cm<sup>2</sup>) groups (<i>p < .0001</i>). Further, bacterial load, exudate scores, and clinical signs and symptoms non-significantly improved with time in all three groups (<i>p</i> > .05). In product performance analysis, Theruptor dressing (n = 33/33) was rated more comfortable to wear than Bactigras (n = 24/28, <i>p = .004</i>) and Allevyn (n = 25/30, <i>p = .02</i>) in diabetic patients. Among non-diabetics, more patients reported \"no pain\" during application and removal of dressing in Theruptor group (n = 26/29 and 28/29) than in Bactigras (n = 18/31; <i>p = .04</i> and n = 20/31; <i>p = .02</i>) and Allevyn groups (n = 12/29; <i>p = .001</i> and n = 16/29; <i>p = .003</i>).ConclusionTheruptor provides a safe and effective alternative for chronic wound management with comparable healing outcomes to Bactigras and Allevyn dressings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94229,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","volume":" ","pages":"15347346251351460"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346251351460","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundAdvanced wound care dressings are vital in managing the complexities of chronic wound treatment. For instance, Theruptor 3-D composite microbicidal dressing is designed with antimicrobial properties to promote wound healing. Despite the availability of several antimicrobial products in the market such as Bactigras, Allevyn, and Aquacel, their comparative efficacy remains unexplored. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of Theruptor versus Bactigras and Allevyn dressings for chronic wound healing.MethodsA randomized, parallel-group study was conducted from May 2022 to July 2024 across five centres in India. Patients with chronic wounds were randomized to allocate Theruptor, Bactigras, and Allevyn dressings (diabetic and non-diabetic etiology; n = 35 each). Wound area, bacterial load, clinical signs and symptoms, exudate management, and product performance were assessed.ResultsA total of 210 patients with chronic wound in the age range of 19-87 years, were recruited and followed up for 8 weeks. The mean wound area was significantly reduced from Day 0 to Day 56 in in diabetic Theruptor (17.35 ± 15.08 cm2 vs 4.13 ± 10.56 cm2), Bactigras (12.93 ± 12.02 cm2 vs 3.6 ± 7.75 cm2), and Allevyn (14.36 ± 9.97 cm2 vs 0.74 ± 1.65 cm2) and non-diabetic Theruptor (20.45 ± 16.8 vs 3.01 ± 7.52 cm2), Bactigras (18.16 ± 14.81 vs 2.52 ± 5.48 cm2), and Allevyn (28.41 ± 19.97 vs 5.31 ± 9.94 cm2) groups (p < .0001). Further, bacterial load, exudate scores, and clinical signs and symptoms non-significantly improved with time in all three groups (p > .05). In product performance analysis, Theruptor dressing (n = 33/33) was rated more comfortable to wear than Bactigras (n = 24/28, p = .004) and Allevyn (n = 25/30, p = .02) in diabetic patients. Among non-diabetics, more patients reported "no pain" during application and removal of dressing in Theruptor group (n = 26/29 and 28/29) than in Bactigras (n = 18/31; p = .04 and n = 20/31; p = .02) and Allevyn groups (n = 12/29; p = .001 and n = 16/29; p = .003).ConclusionTheruptor provides a safe and effective alternative for chronic wound management with comparable healing outcomes to Bactigras and Allevyn dressings.

Theruptor 3-D复合杀微生物敷料与Bactigras和Allevyn敷料对慢性感染伤口愈合的临床疗效和安全性的比较:一项随机、多中心、比较、平行组、前瞻性研究。
先进的伤口护理敷料在处理慢性伤口治疗的复杂性方面是至关重要的。例如,Theruptor 3-D复合杀微生物敷料具有抗菌特性,可促进伤口愈合。尽管市场上有几种抗菌产品,如Bactigras、Allevyn和Aquacel,但它们的相对功效仍未得到探索。本研究评估了Theruptor与Bactigras和Allevyn敷料在慢性伤口愈合中的临床疗效和安全性。方法于2022年5月至2024年7月在印度五个中心进行随机平行组研究。慢性伤口患者随机分配Theruptor、Bactigras和Allevyn敷料(糖尿病和非糖尿病病因;N = 35)。评估伤口面积、细菌负荷、临床体征和症状、渗出液处理和产品性能。结果共收集慢性创面患者210例,年龄19 ~ 87岁,随访8周。从第0天到第56天,糖尿病Theruptor组(17.35±15.08 cm2 vs 4.13±10.56 cm2)、Bactigras组(12.93±12.02 cm2 vs 3.6±7.75 cm2)、Allevyn组(14.36±9.97 cm2 vs 0.74±1.65 cm2)和非糖尿病Theruptor组(20.45±16.8 vs 3.01±7.52 cm2)、Bactigras组(18.16±14.81 vs 2.52±5.48 cm2)、Allevyn组(28.41±19.97 vs 5.31±9.94 cm2)的平均伤口面积显著减少(p)。此外,三组的细菌载量、渗出液评分、临床体征和症状均随时间无显著改善(p < 0.05)。在产品性能分析中,Theruptor敷料(n = 33/33)在糖尿病患者中的穿着舒适度优于Bactigras (n = 24/28, p = 0.004)和Allevyn (n = 25/30, p = 0.02)。在非糖尿病患者中,Theruptor组(n = 26/29和28/29)比Bactigras组(n = 18/31;p =。04, n = 20/31;p = .02)和Allevyn组(n = 12/29;p =。001, n = 16/29;p = .003)。结论theruptor为慢性创面治疗提供了安全有效的选择,其愈合效果与Bactigras和Allevyn敷料相当。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信