UNLABELLED: Objective. To compare 3 types of silver dressing in the typical clinical conditions of a community health center, regarding the time to achieve resolution of clinical signs of local infection, and wound healing progress over 8 weeks. METHODS: A prospective, comparative study involving 75 patients with infected chronic wounds who were divided into 3 treatment groups: Acticoat™ (group 1); Comfeel®Ag hydrocolloid/Biatain®Ag polyurethane foam (group 2); and Aquacel® Ag (group 3). RESULTS: The groups were comparable at baseline. Clinical signs of infection were resolved faster in group 1 than in the other two groups (P <0.05, median: group 1 = 2 weeks; group 2 = 4 weeks; group 3 = 4 weeks. Group 1 required fewer treatments to eliminate the clinical signs of infection (median: group 1 = 6 treatments; group 2 = 12 treatments; group 3 = 12 treatments). Patients in group 1 healed faster than patients in the other 2 groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The treatment in group 1 was more effective than that of groups 2 and 3 in the treatment of infected, chronic wounds. Clinical signs of infection were resolved faster (P < 0.05) and wounds healed more quickly (P < 0.05) in group 1 than in the other 2 groups. .
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Objective. To compare 3 types of silver dressing in the typical clinical conditions of a community health center, regarding the time to achieve resolution of clinical signs of local infection, and wound healing progress over 8 weeks. METHODS: A prospective, comparative study involving 75 patients with infected chronic wounds who were divided into 3 treatment groups: Acticoat™ (group 1); Comfeel® Ag hydrocolloid/Biatain® Ag polyurethane foam (group 2); and Aquacel® Ag (group 3). RESULTS: The groups were comparable at baseline. Clinical signs of infection were resolved faster in group 1 than in the other two groups (P <0.05, median: group 1 = 2 weeks; group 2 = 4 weeks; group 3 = 4 weeks. Group 1 required fewer treatments to eliminate the clinical signs of infection (median: group 1 = 6 treatments; group 2 = 12 treatments; group 3 = 12 treatments). Patients in group 1 healed faster than patients in the other 2 groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The treatment in group 1 was more effective than that of groups 2 and 3 in the treatment of infected, chronic wounds. Clinical signs of infection were resolved faster (P < 0.05) and wounds healed more quickly (P < 0.05) in group 1 than in the other 2 groups. .
Authors: Ka-Kit Tsang; Enid Wai-Yung Kwong; Kevin Y Woo; Tony Shing-Shun To; Joanne Wai-Yee Chung; Thomas Kwok-Shing Wong Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 2.629