Comparison of a hydrocolloid dressing and silver sulfadiazine cream in the outpatient management of second-degree burns. A matched-pair, randomized study evaluating the efficacy and safety of Acticoat silver-coated dressing for the treatment of burn wounds.
The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the use of an occlusive hydrocolloid dressing (Duoderm hydroactive, Squibb) and silver sulfadiazine (Silvadene, Marion) cream in the outpatient management of second-degree burns. The inclusion criteria consisted of burns less than 15% total body surface area that were evaluated within 24 hours of injury and did not require hospital admission. Fifty patients were randomly assigned after having been screened through a list of seven exclusion criteria. On initial evaluation the burns were photographed and screened for causative agent, location, size, depth, tetanus status, and presence of associated burns and injuries. Patients were seen in followup at least biweekly and evaluated for wound bed healing, wound margin healing, pain, number of dressing changes between visits, and ease of dressing application and removal. On final evaluation the burns were photographed and inspected for appearance of the healed burn, repigmentation, wound contraction, approximate time for dressing change, patient compliance, limitation of activity, overall impression of the treatment, and number of days for complete healing. Results were compared using a two-tailed t-test with p less than 0.01. Both groups were statistically similar in age, sex, and size. Duoderm-treated burns had statistically significantly better wound healing, repigmentation, less pain, fewer dressing changes, less time for dressing changes, and less cost. Duoderm-treated patients had statistically significantly less limitation of activity, better patient compliance, greater patient comfort, better overall acceptance, and felt the treatment was more aesthetically pleasing. The results reveal that the Duoderm Hydroactive dressings are superior to Silvadene cream in the outpatient management of second-degree burns. A new silver-coating technology was developed to prevent wound adhesion, limit nosocomial infection, control bacterial growth, and facilitate burn wound care through a silver-coated dressing material. For the purposes of this article, Acticoat (Westaim Biomedical Inc, Fort Saskatchawan, Alberta, Canada) silver-coated dressing was used. After in vitro and in vivo studies, a randomized, prospective clinical study was performed to assess the efficacy and ease of use of Acticoat dressing as compared with the efficacy and ease of our institution's standard burn wound care. Thirty burn patients with symmetric wounds were randomized to be treated with either 0.5% silver nitrate solution or Acticoat silver-coated dressing. The dressing was evaluated on the basis of overall patient comfort, ease of use for the wound care provider, and level of antimicrobial effectiveness. Wound pain was rated by the patient using a visual analog scale during dressing removal, application, and 2 hours after application. Ease of use was rated by the nurse providing wound care. Antimicrobial effectiveness was evaluated by quantitative burn wound biopsies performed before and at the end of treatment. Patients found dressing removal less painful with Acticoat than with silver nitrate, but they found the pain to be comparable during application and 2 hours after application. According to the nurses, there was no statistically significant difference in the ease of use. The frequency of burn wound sepsis (> 10(5) organisms per gram of tissue) was less in Acticoat-treated wounds than in those treated with silver nitrate (5 vs 16). Secondary bacteremias arising from infected burn wounds were also less frequent with Acticoat than with silver nitrate-treated wounds (1 vs 5). Acticoat dressing offers a new form of dressing for the burn wound, but it requires further investigation with greater numbers of patients in a larger number of centers and in different phases of burn wound care.
First aid for phosphorus burns involves the common sense measures of acting promptly to remove the patient's clothes, irrigating the wound(s) with water or saline continuously, and removing phosphorus particles. There is no evidence that using copper sulphate to assist visualisation of phosphorus particles for removal is associated with better outcome, and some evidence that systemic absorption of copper sulphate may be harmful. We have so far been unable to identify any other comparisons relevant to informing other aspects of the care of patients with phosphorus burns. Future versions of this review will take account of information in articles published in languages other than English, which may contain additional evidence based on treatment comparisons.