Jan Akkan, Mahsa Bagheri, Sophia Mezger, Paul Christian Fuchs, Maria von Kohout, Wolfram Heitzmann, Rolf Lefering, Jennifer Lynn Schiefer
{"title":"在治疗浅表部分厚度烧伤创面方面,真丝能与现有的美匹拉斯Ag®竞争吗?一项前瞻性个体研究。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
简介:浅表部分厚度烧伤一般不需要手术干预,用专门的伤口敷料处理。Mepilex Ag®是常用的,通常代表护理标准。本研究评估了真丝与Mepilex Ag®的临床性能。方法:对成人浅表部分厚度烧伤患者进行前瞻性、单中心个体研究。每个烧伤创面被分割,一半用真丝治疗,另一半用美匹莱克斯Ag®治疗。随访3个月,分析临床参数包括伤口愈合时间、疼痛程度和疤痕质量。结果:共纳入24例患者(平均颅脑面积5.8%)。Mepilex Ag显示出伤口愈合时间较短的趋势(10.5天vs. 11.5天;P = 0.223)。在整个治疗过程中,两种敷料的疼痛评分均低于4/10。然而,Mepilex Ag®在第一天表现出明显的疼痛减轻(3.5 vs. 2.77;P = 0.039)和第二天(2.91 vs. 2.27;P = 0.041)。3个月后疤痕质量相似。结论:两种敷料均为有效的治疗方法。纯丝需要较少的资源,具有很高的临床实用性,并且在关键临床参数中表现出与Mepilex Ag®相似的性能,使其成为其他诊所和我们的标准护理的有趣选择。
Can Pure Silk Compete with the Established Mepilex Ag® in the Treatment of Superficial Partial Thickness Burn Wounds? A Prospective Intraindividual Study.
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.