Optimizing Suprathel®-therapy by the use of Octenidine-Gel®.

Objective: A prospective, randomized, non-blinded, clinical study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and practicability as well as pain reduction and ease of handling of Flammazine® versus Octenidine-Gel® s a primary local antiseptic before synthetic skin substitute application in partial-thickness burns.
Methods: Thirty patients with a median age of 42 years suffering from second-degree burns were included in the study. Burns were randomly selected, one area was treated with Flammazine®/gauze, another area in the same patient was treated with Octenidine-Gel®/gauze as initial antiseptic treatment. Within 24 h the first gauze change was performed followed by wound inspection, disinfection and synthetic skin substitute application. The study focused on patient pain score, analysis of wound bed and ease of handling of the two local antiseptic agents.
Results: There was a significant difference between Flammazine® versus Octenidine-Gel® regarding patient pain score and ease of handling. Octenidine-Gel® was less painful (p < 0.05) and easier to handle (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference for wound bed evaluation between the two antiseptic agents. A tendency for better wound bed preparation was seen with the use of Octenidine-Gel®.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study Octenidine-Gel® is recommended as a local antiseptic agent, because when compared to Flammazine®, Octenidine-Gel® proved to be better in terms of ease of care, simplicity application, with gentler and faster detachment of the gel from wound surfaces and consequently far less pain during dressing changes.
(Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.)