Can Pure Silk Compete with the Established Mepilex Ag® in the Treatment of Superficial Partial Thickness Burn Wounds? A Prospective Intraindividual Study.
Jan Akkan, Mahsa Bagheri, Sophia Mezger, Paul Christian Fuchs, Maria von Kohout, Wolfram Heitzmann, Rolf Lefering, Jennifer Lynn Schiefer
{"title":"Can Pure Silk Compete with the Established Mepilex Ag<sup>®</sup> in the Treatment of Superficial Partial Thickness Burn Wounds? A Prospective Intraindividual Study.","authors":"Jan Akkan, Mahsa Bagheri, Sophia Mezger, Paul Christian Fuchs, Maria von Kohout, Wolfram Heitzmann, Rolf Lefering, Jennifer Lynn Schiefer","doi":"10.3390/ebj6030041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Superficial partial thickness burns generally do not require surgical intervention and are managed with specialized wound dressings. Mepilex Ag<sup>®</sup> is commonly used and often represents the standard of care. This study evaluated the clinical performance of pure silk compared to Mepilex Ag<sup>®</sup>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, single-center intraindividual study was conducted on adult patients with superficial partial thickness burns. Each burn wound was divided, treating one half with pure silk and the other with Mepilex Ag<sup>®</sup>. Clinical parameters including wound closure time, pain levels, and scar quality at 3-month follow-up were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four patients were included (mean TBSA: 5.8%). Mepilex Ag<sup>®</sup> showed a trend towards a shorter wound closure time (10.5 vs. 11.5 days; <i>p</i> = 0.223). Pain scores remained below 4/10 for both dressings throughout treatment. However, Mepilex Ag<sup>®</sup> demonstrated significantly lower pain on day one (3.5 vs. 2.77; <i>p</i> = 0.039) and day two (2.91 vs. 2.27; <i>p</i> = 0.041). Scar quality after 3 months was similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both dressings proved to be effective treatment options. Pure silk required fewer resources, showed high clinical practicality, and demonstrated a similar performance to Mepilex Ag<sup>®</sup> in key clinical parameters, making it an interesting option for other clinics and our standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":72961,"journal":{"name":"European burn journal","volume":"6 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12286067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European burn journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj6030041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Superficial partial thickness burns generally do not require surgical intervention and are managed with specialized wound dressings. Mepilex Ag® is commonly used and often represents the standard of care. This study evaluated the clinical performance of pure silk compared to Mepilex Ag®.
Methods: A prospective, single-center intraindividual study was conducted on adult patients with superficial partial thickness burns. Each burn wound was divided, treating one half with pure silk and the other with Mepilex Ag®. Clinical parameters including wound closure time, pain levels, and scar quality at 3-month follow-up were analyzed.
Results: Twenty-four patients were included (mean TBSA: 5.8%). Mepilex Ag® showed a trend towards a shorter wound closure time (10.5 vs. 11.5 days; p = 0.223). Pain scores remained below 4/10 for both dressings throughout treatment. However, Mepilex Ag® demonstrated significantly lower pain on day one (3.5 vs. 2.77; p = 0.039) and day two (2.91 vs. 2.27; p = 0.041). Scar quality after 3 months was similar.
Conclusion: Both dressings proved to be effective treatment options. Pure silk required fewer resources, showed high clinical practicality, and demonstrated a similar performance to Mepilex Ag® in key clinical parameters, making it an interesting option for other clinics and our standard of care.