Search

Objective: The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of using lyophilised porcine skin (Xenoderm) compared with 1% silver sulfadiazine (SSD) in partial-thickness burns with regard to wound infection, length of hospital stay, number of dressings and doses of analgesics used (oral and injection)., Methods: A total of 78 burns patients were included in this randomised study; their burns were caused by scalds or flames. They had second degree burns and had a burn area of 1060% of total body surface area (TBSA). Thirty-seven patients were treated with daily washing, followed by topical application of SSD dressing (the SSD group) and 39 with a biological dressing, i.e. Xenoderm (the Xenoderm group). The differences were evaluated using unpaired Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test., Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, TBSA, cause of burn, and thickness of the burn or burn site. But there were significant differences regarding degree of wound infection, length of hospital stay, number of used dressings and given doses of analgesics., Conclusion: Xenoderm seems to be more effective than SSD dressing in terms of pain control, degree of wound infection, used wound dressings and length of hospital stay for partial-thickness burns. Prospective randomised studies are now necessary to compare possible reductions in the use of split thickness skin grafts and re-epithelialisation times.

Background: For many years, burns were treated by daily saline-soaked dressings until the burns healed primarily. Today, wounds are closed via grafting techniques, or by using synthetic and biological dressings. Due to less experience and interest in the use of biological dressing in developing countries, the aim of this study was to compare the outcome of biological dressings versus 'conventional' treatment in patients with massive burns., Methods: One hundred eighteen patients with total body surface area (TBSA) burns of 30% to 75%, by flame or scalds, were investigated from October 2002 to June 2006. The patients were divided into two groups. Those in the first group received conventional treatment (n=53) and those in the second group (n=65) received treatment with a biological dressing (Xenoderm)., Results: Mortality rates in the conventional group and biological group were 19 (35%) and 7 (10.8%), respectively (p=0.001). The mean hospital stay was 31.3 days vs 18.2 days and the number of dressings was 22.1 vs 9.9, respectively (p=0.0005)., Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that a biological dressing (Xenoderm) gave a better outcome and lower mortality. However, a randomized clinical trial that compares the number of operations and decreasing need for split thickness skin grafts is warranted.