BACKGROUND: As extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) can enhance healing of skin graft donor sites, this study focused on shock wave effects in burn wounds. METHODS: A predefined cohort of 50 patients (6 with incomplete data or lost to follow-up) with acute second-degree burns from a larger study of 100 patients were randomly assigned between December 2006 and December 2007 to receivestandard therapy (burn wound debridement/topical antiseptic therapy) with (n = 22) or without (n = 22) defocused ESWT (100 impulses/cm at 0.1 mJ/mm) applied once to the study burn, after debridement. Randomization sequence was computer-generated, and patients were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint, time to complete burn wound epithelialization, was determined by independent, blinded-observer. A worst case scenario was applied to the missing cases to rule out the impact of withdrawal bias. RESULTS: Patient characteristics across the 2 study groups were balanced (P > 0.05) except for older age (53 ± 17 vs. 38 ± 13 years, P = 0.002) in the ESWT group. Mean time to complete (≥95%) epithelialization (CE) for patients that did and did not undergo ESWT was 9.6 ± 1.7 and 12.5 ± 2.2 days, respectively (P < 0.0005). When age (continuous variable) and treatment group (binary) were examined in a linear regression model to control the baseline age imbalance, time to CE, age was not significant (P = 0.33) and treatment group retained significance (P < 0.0005). Statistical significance (P = 0.001) was retained when ESWT cases with missing follow-up were assigned the longest time to CE and when controls with missing follow-up were assigned the shortest time to CE. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II study, application of a single defocused shock wave treatment to the superficial second-degree burn wound after debridement/topical antiseptic therapy significantly accelerated epithelialization. This finding warrants confirmation in a larger phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01242423).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: As extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) can enhance healing of skin graft donor sites, this study focused on shock wave effects in burn wounds. METHODS: A predefined cohort of 50 patients (6 with incomplete data or lost to follow-up) with acute second-degree burns from a larger study of 100 patients were randomly assigned between December 2006 and December 2007 to receive standard therapy (burn wound debridement/topical antiseptic therapy) with (n = 22) or without (n = 22) defocused ESWT (100 impulses/cm at 0.1 mJ/mm) applied once to the study burn, after debridement. Randomization sequence was computer-generated, and patients were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint, time to complete burn wound epithelialization, was determined by independent, blinded-observer. A worst case scenario was applied to the missing cases to rule out the impact of withdrawal bias. RESULTS:Patient characteristics across the 2 study groups were balanced (P > 0.05) except for older age (53 ± 17 vs. 38 ± 13 years, P = 0.002) in the ESWT group. Mean time to complete (≥95%) epithelialization (CE) for patients that did and did not undergo ESWT was 9.6 ± 1.7 and 12.5 ± 2.2 days, respectively (P < 0.0005). When age (continuous variable) and treatment group (binary) were examined in a linear regression model to control the baseline age imbalance, time to CE, age was not significant (P = 0.33) and treatment group retained significance (P < 0.0005). Statistical significance (P = 0.001) was retained when ESWT cases with missing follow-up were assigned the longest time to CE and when controls with missing follow-up were assigned the shortest time to CE. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II study, application of a single defocused shock wave treatment to the superficial second-degree burn wound after debridement/topical antiseptic therapy significantly accelerated epithelialization. This finding warrants confirmation in a larger phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01242423).
Authors: Frank Falkensammer; Wolfgang Schaden; Christoph Krall; Josef Freudenthaler; Hans-Peter Bantleon Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Can Gollmann-Tepeköylü; Felix Nägele; Michael Graber; Leo Pölzl; Daniela Lobenwein; Jakob Hirsch; Angela An; Regina Irschick; Bernhard Röhrs; Christian Kremser; Hubert Hackl; Rosalie Huber; Serena Venezia; David Hercher; Helga Fritsch; Nikolaos Bonaros; Nadia Stefanova; Ivan Tancevski; Dirk Meyer; Michael Grimm; Johannes Holfeld Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-08-06
Authors: Can Tepeköylü; Uwe Primessnig; Leo Pölzl; Michael Graber; Daniela Lobenwein; Felix Nägele; Elke Kirchmair; Elisabeth Pechriggl; Michael Grimm; Johannes Holfeld Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 5.310
Authors: Johannes Holfeld; Can Tepeköylü; Stefan Blunder; Daniela Lobenwein; Elke Kirchmair; Marion Dietl; Radoslaw Kozaryn; Daniela Lener; Markus Theurl; Patrick Paulus; Rudolf Kirchmair; Michael Grimm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christoph Schmitz; Nikolaus B M Császár; Stefan Milz; Matthias Schieker; Nicola Maffulli; Jan-Dirk Rompe; John P Furia Journal: Br Med Bull Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.291
Authors: Yoon Soo Cho; So Young Joo; Huisong Cui; Sung-Rae Cho; Haejun Yim; Cheong Hoon Seo Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.889