The "Sulfamylon sandwich"--a laminated mafenide-saline dressing

2.5% Mafenide Acetate: A Cost-Effective Alternative to the 5% Solution for Burn Wounds

Mafenide acetate is an antimicrobial agent used to decrease the bacterial load for burn wounds. The 5% solution is more commonly used yet double the cost of its 2.5% counterpart. This study aims to evaluate outcomes and cost associated with the use of 2.5 vs 5% mafenide acetate formulation in the adult burn population. Adult patients (≥18 years) receiving 2.5% mafenide acetate during an 11-month period between 2014 and 2015, corresponding to a policy change in favor of the use of 2.5% mafenide acetate, were queried. Historical controls, patients receiving 5% mafenide acetate, were also reviewed during an 11-month period between 2013 and 2014. A retrospective review was performed comparing wound infection rate, bacteremia, sepsis, pneumonia, duration of mafenide therapy, length of hospital stay, mortality, and cost. A total of 54 and 65 patients received 2.5 and 5% mafenide acetate, respectively. There was no difference in wound infection, bacteremia, sepsis, pneumonia, duration of treatment, and mortality between the two groups. No adverse events occurred in either group directly related to mafenide. Candida and Staph species were the two most common isolates in the 2.5% group, whereas Pseudomonas and Staph species were the most common in the 5% arm. The mean cost of 2.5% mafenide therapy was $1494.92 compared with $3741.39 for 5% mafenide acetate. The 2.5% concentration demonstrates to be an equally efficacious and cost-effective alternative to the 5% concentration. Burn centers should consider the use of the more dilute preparation for burn wound infection prophylaxis as it may reduce the cost without compromising patient safety.

Managing extracavitary prosthetic vascular graft infections: a pathway to success

Prosthetic vascular graft infections portend grave consequences if not treated expediently. Despite the low incidence of infection, the potential for limb loss or death greatly magnifies this complication. The surgical management of prosthetic graft infections has evolved over the last 2 decades. With the myriad therapeutic options now available, an algorithm is necessary to provide the optimal surgical treatment of Samson groups 1 through 5 extracavitary infected vascular prostheses. An extensive review of the literature was undertaken to evaluate the most effective management schemes. The authors found that 3 factors--Samson classification, bacteriology, and patient vascular anatomy--are vital to the surgical strategy. These 3 criteria were examined, and an algorithm was developed based on successful clinical and experimental results. This review provides a step-by-step rationale for the surgical management of extracavitary prosthetic graft infections according to the most successful reported outcomes.

The use of the carbon dioxide laser permits primary closure of contaminated and purulent lesions and wounds

Excision of contaminated and purulent wounds with the carbon dioxide laser makes it safe to close the wounds primarily when certain steps are observed during the operation. The contaminated surface is sterilized with the defocused beam. The surgeons' and assistants' hands should not touch the contaminated areas, and both should wear two pairs of rubber gloves to protect against accidental contamination. All infected tissue is excised completely, and the wound cleansed by copious irrigation and the defocused laser. The wound may then be safely closed by simple sutures, skin graft, or by the rotation of a vascularized musculocutaneous flap. A series of cases are presented in order to illustrate these points.