OBJECTIVE: A prospective, randomized, bicentric, nonblinded, clinical study was conducted to evaluate the impact on wound healing of Suprathel in partial-thickness burn injuries. Suprathel represents an absorbable, synthetic wound dressing with properties of natural epithelium. METHODS:Thirty patients suffering from second-degree burn injuries were included in the study, with a mean of age 40.4 years old. Burn injuries were randomly selected, partly treated with Omiderm and partly treated with Suprathel. The first gauze change was applied the fifth day postoperatively, followed by regular wound inspection until complete reepithelization. The study focused on patient pain score, healing time, analysis of wound bed, ease of care, and treatment costs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 materials tested regarding healing time and reepithelization. There was a significant lower pain score for patients treated with Suprathel (P = 0.0072). Suprathel becomes transparent when applied, thus allowing close monitoring of wound healing. In contrast to Omiderm, Suprathel shows better attachment and adherence to wounds. During the course of healing, it detaches smoothly, without damaging the reepithelized wound surface. Moreover, it reduces the frequency of dressing changes required. Ease of care of Suprathel has been rated outstanding by patients and healthcare professionals. When interviewed, patients reported Suprathel as their treatment preference. As dressing material, Omiderm is more cost-effective than Suprathel. CONCLUSION: Suprathel represents a reliable epidermal skin substitute, with a good impact on wound healing and pain reduction in partial-thickness burn injuries. Although it is less cost-effective than Omiderm, the significant increase of patient comfort makes this material represent a reliable and solid treatment alternative when dealing with partial-thickness burn injuries. Further studies with this synthetic dressing on other types of wounds are warranted.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: A prospective, randomized, bicentric, nonblinded, clinical study was conducted to evaluate the impact on wound healing of Suprathel in partial-thickness burn injuries. Suprathel represents an absorbable, synthetic wound dressing with properties of natural epithelium. METHODS: Thirty patients suffering from second-degree burn injuries were included in the study, with a mean of age 40.4 years old. Burn injuries were randomly selected, partly treated with Omiderm and partly treated with Suprathel. The first gauze change was applied the fifth day postoperatively, followed by regular wound inspection until complete reepithelization. The study focused on patientpain score, healing time, analysis of wound bed, ease of care, and treatment costs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 materials tested regarding healing time and reepithelization. There was a significant lower pain score for patients treated with Suprathel (P = 0.0072). Suprathel becomes transparent when applied, thus allowing close monitoring of wound healing. In contrast to Omiderm, Suprathel shows better attachment and adherence to wounds. During the course of healing, it detaches smoothly, without damaging the reepithelized wound surface. Moreover, it reduces the frequency of dressing changes required. Ease of care of Suprathel has been rated outstanding by patients and healthcare professionals. When interviewed, patients reported Suprathel as their treatment preference. As dressing material, Omiderm is more cost-effective than Suprathel. CONCLUSION:Suprathel represents a reliable epidermal skin substitute, with a good impact on wound healing and pain reduction in partial-thickness burn injuries. Although it is less cost-effective than Omiderm, the significant increase of patient comfort makes this material represent a reliable and solid treatment alternative when dealing with partial-thickness burn injuries. Further studies with this synthetic dressing on other types of wounds are warranted.
Authors: Christoph Brochhausen; Volker H Schmitt; Constanze N E Planck; Taufiek K Rajab; David Hollemann; Christine Tapprich; Bernhard Krämer; Christian Wallwiener; Helmut Hierlemann; Rolf Zehbe; Heinrich Planck; C James Kirkpatrick Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Celeste C Finnerty; Marc G Jeschke; Ludwik K Branski; Juan P Barret; Peter Dziewulski; David N Herndon Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marc G Jeschke; Shahriar Shahrokhi; Celeste C Finnerty; Ludwik K Branski; Manuel Dibildox Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 1.845