Evaluation of two fibrous wound dressings for the management of leg ulcers: results of a European randomised controlled trial (EARTH RCT)

Debridement - how efficient can a wound dressing be? The answer from a large prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance and tolerance of two polyabsorbent fibre dressings (a pad impregnated with a technology lipido-colloid healing matrix and a rope) in an unselected cohort of patients with wounds of various aetiologies in daily practice.

METHOD

A prospective, observational, multicentre study was conducted in 152 centres across Germany. Wounds were treated with the evaluated dressings (UrgoClean pad and UrgoClean rope, Laboratoires Urgo, France) for six weeks. Main outcomes included changes in: overall wound healing progression; wound bed tissues; exudate; infection status; malodour; and pain, as well as acceptability and tolerance of the dressings.

RESULTS

A total of 1558 patients (aged 3-100 years) were included: 944 patients with chronic (mostly venous leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and pressure ulcers) wounds; and 614 with other wounds (mostly surgical wounds, skin abrasions and burns). By the final visit, 42.0% of wounds had healed within 33±15 days, and a wound healing improvement was reported in 52.5%. Continuous reduction in sloughy tissue was observed (from 60% initially to 10% at final visit), regardless of dressing or wound type. This improvement was associated with a reduction in: infection rates, by 87.3%; malodour, by 86.7%; maceration by 65.6%; and spontaneous pain by 60.4%. Both dressings were rated as 'very well' tolerated and 'accepted' by most patients (85.3 and 76.1%, respectively), and judged as 'extremely useful' by the majority of physicians (72.0%), notably in cases of infected wounds without antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSION

The two dressings assessed in this study were shown to be efficient in removing sloughy tissue and promoting wound healing, regardless of wound type or infection status. These results are consistent with previous clinical evidence and support their intended use.

A randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, comparative study to compare the efficacy and safety of Exufiber® with Aquacel® Extra™ dressings in exuding venous and mixed aetiology leg ulcers

The performance and safety of Exufiber® gelling fibre and Aquacel® Extra™ Hydrofiber® wound dressings were compared for the management of chronic, exuding leg ulcers. The 6‐week study (≤ 24 weeks in a subgroup of subjects) was a randomised, open‐label, parallel‐group, multicentre, non‐inferiority design. Adults (n = 248, 30–97 years of age) were randomised to either Exufiber® or Aquacel® Extra™ dressing. The dressings were applied at baseline and evaluations of wound condition and performance of the dressing were recorded at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage reduction in wound area at 6 weeks relative to baseline, in the per protocol (PP) population. A median relative reduction of 50% for Exufiber® (n = 100) vs 42% for Aquacel® Extra™ (n = 107) was demonstrated in the PP population (P = 0.093) and confirmed in the intention‐to‐treat population. As the mean and 95% confidence interval for the difference in relative wound area reduction between groups at 6 weeks was −29.4% (−63.5; 3.2), and the lower limit did not exceed 12%, non‐inferiority of Exufiber® was concluded. Both dressings were well tolerated and no safety concerns were identified in both groups. Clinicians' satisfaction with the dressings was higher for Exufiber® than for Aquacel® Extra™ in terms of ease of use and management of exudate, slough, and blood.

Effectiveness of Blue light photobiomodulation therapy in the treatment of chronic wounds. Results of the Blue Light for Ulcer Reduction (B.L.U.R.) Study

BACKGROUND

Lower limb ulcers not responding to standard treatments after 8 weeks are defined as chronic wounds, and they are a significant medical problem. Blue light (410-430 nm) proved to be effective in treating wounds, but there is a lack of data on chronic wounds in clinical practice. The study's purpose was to determine if Blue Light photobiomodulation with EmoLED medical device in addition to Standard of Care is more effective compared to Standard of care alone in promoting re-epithelialization of chronicwounds of lower limbs in 10 weeks.

METHODS

90 patients affected by multiple or large area ulcers were enrolled. To minimize all variabilities, each patient has been used as control of himself. Primary endpoint was the comparison of the re-epithelialization rate expressed as a percentage of the difference between the initial and final area. Secondary endpoints were: treatment safety, pain reduction, wound area reduction trend over time, healing rate.

RESULTS

At week 10, the wounds treated with EmoLED in addition to Standard Care showed a smaller residual wound area compared to the wounds treated with Standard of Care alone: 42.1% vs 63.4% (p=0.029). The difference is particularly evident in venous leg ulcers, 33.3% vs 60.1% (p=0.007). 17 treated wounds and 12 controls showed complete healing at week 10. Patients showed a significant reduction in pain (p = 2*10-7).

CONCLUSIONS

Blue Light treatment in addition to Standard of Care accelerates consistently the re-epithelialization rate of chronic wounds, especially venous leg ulcers and increases the chances of total wound healing in 10 weeks.

Review of the Current Evidence for Topical Treatment for Venous Leg Ulcers

OBJECTIVE

The development of a venous leg ulcer (VLU) represents the most severe clinical manifestation of a chronic venous disease. Despite major progress, there is a limited understanding of VLU pathogenesis and wound healing biology. Treatment of VLUs remains a serious challenge for physicians of different specialties. This communication focuses on describing the rationale and scientific basis for topical wound care in the management of VLUs.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to summarize methods with proven efficacy in VLU management. A systematic literature search was also performed to identify new evidence from the randomized controlled trials published within 2014-2021. The scientific challenges, clinical practice concerns, economic obstacles, and possible directions for further research have been discussed.

RESULTS

Hundreds of topical products have been advertised for the treatment of VLUs. Published data on topical treatment of venous ulcers is insufficient, scattered, weak, and has significant methodological flaws. Forty-three randomized controlled trials on topical treatment of VLUs have been published within 2014-2021. Clinical practice guidelines need to be updated. Major gaps in knowledge have been identified, and suggestions for future research directions have been provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The American Venous Forum Research Committee would like to bring attention to topical wound care for VLUs as a critical gap in knowledge, and encourage scientists, practitioners, and industry to collaborate to fill this gap.

In Vitro Efficacy of Bacterial Cellulose Dressings Chemisorbed with Antiseptics against Biofilm Formed by Pathogens Isolated from Chronic Wounds

Local administration of antiseptics is required to prevent and fight against biofilm-based infections of chronic wounds. One of the methods used for delivering antiseptics to infected wounds is the application of dressings chemisorbed with antimicrobials. Dressings made of bacterial cellulose (BC) display several features, making them suitable for such a purpose. This work aimed to compare the activity of commonly used antiseptic molecules: octenidine, polyhexanide, povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, ethacridine lactate, and hypochlorous solutions and to evaluate their usefulness as active substances of BC dressings against 48 bacterial strains (8 species) and 6 yeast strains (1 species). A silver dressing was applied as a control material of proven antimicrobial activity. The methodology applied included the assessment of minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) and minimal biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC), the modified disc-diffusion method, and the modified antibiofilm dressing activity measurement (A.D.A.M.) method. While in 96-well plate-based methods (MIC and MBEC assessment), the highest antimicrobial activity was recorded for chlorhexidine, in the modified disc-diffusion method and in the modified A.D.A.M test, povidone-iodine performed the best. In an in vitro setting simulating chronic wound conditions, BC dressings chemisorbed with polyhexanide, octenidine, or povidone-iodine displayed a similar or even higher antibiofilm activity than the control dressing containing silver molecules. If translated into clinical conditions, the obtained results suggest high applicability of BC dressings chemisorbed with antiseptics to eradicate biofilm from chronic wounds.

Use of a TLC-Ag dressing on 2270 patients with wounds at risk or with signs of local infection: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

A description of wounds treated with a poly-absorbent silver dressing (with technology lipido-colloid with silver ions, TLC-Ag), and evaluation of the short-term clinical impact of the dressing on the wound healing process, under real-life conditions.

METHOD

A large, prospective, multicentre, observational study of patients in 81 centres in Germany, presenting with an exuding wound at risk or with clinical signs of local infection for whom the evaluated TLC-Ag dressing (UrgoClean Ag, Laboratoires Urgo, France) has been prescribed. Main outcomes included: reduction in number of wound infections diagnosed and clinical signs of local infection, wound healing rate, clinical assessment of wound healing progression, relative wound area reduction (RWAR), local tolerability, handling and acceptance of the dressing.

RESULTS

A total of 2270 patients with acute and chronic wounds of various aetiologies were treated with the evaluated dressing for a mean duration of 22±13 days. All clinical signs of local infection and the diagnosed wound infections were substantially reduced at two weeks after the treatment initiation. All wound infection parameters continued to reduce until the last visit. In the meantime, clinical improvement in wound healing was reported in 98.9% of acute wounds, with a wound closure rate of 68.5%. In chronic wounds, a median RWAR of 57.4% was achieved, with an improvement in healing process documented by clinicians in 90.6% of cases, stabilisation in 6.1% and worsening in 3.2%. Similar results were reported, regardless of exudate level and proportion of sloughy and granulation tissues in the wound bed at baseline. The dressing was well tolerated and well accepted by both patients and health professionals.

CONCLUSION

These results, documented in a large cohort of patients treated in current practice, support and complete the clinical evidence on the healing properties and safety profile of the TLC-Ag dressing in the management of wounds at risk or with clinical signs of local infection, regardless of wound and patient characteristics. Declaration of interest: This study was supported by a grant from Laboratoires Urgo. UM, EB, LT and SB are employees of Laboratoires Urgo. JD, KCM and MD provided advisory and speaking services to pharmaceutical and other healthcare organisations including, but not limited to, Laboratoires Urgo. Data management and statistical analyses were conducted independently by INPADS GmbH, Germany.

Dressings and topical agents for arterial leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that up to 1% of people in high-income countries suffer from a leg ulcer at some time in their life. The majority of leg ulcers are associated with circulation problems; poor blood return in the veins causes venous ulcers (around 70% of ulcers) and poor blood supply to the legs causes arterial ulcers (around 22% of ulcers). Treatment of arterial leg ulcers is directed towards correcting poor arterial blood supply, for example by correcting arterial blockages (either surgically or pharmaceutically). If the blood supply has been restored, these arterial ulcers can heal following principles of good wound-care. Dressings and topical agents make up a part of good wound-care for arterial ulcers, but there are many products available, and it is unclear what impact these have on ulcer healing. This is the third update of a review first published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether topical agents and wound dressings affect healing in arterial ulcers. To compare healing rates and patient-centred outcomes between wound dressings and topical agents.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to 28 January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating dressings and topical agents in the treatment of arterial leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with arterial leg ulcers irrespective of method of diagnosis. Trials that included participants with mixed arterio-venous disease and diabetes were eligible for inclusion if they presented results separately for the different groups. All wound dressings and topical agents were eligible for inclusion in this review. We excluded trials which did not report on at least one of the primary outcomes (time to healing, proportion completely healed, or change in ulcer area).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted information on the participants' characteristics, the interventions, and outcomes using a standardised data extraction form. Review authors resolved any disagreements through discussion. We presented the data narratively due to differences in the included trials. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. One compared 2% ketanserin ointment in polyethylene glycol (PEG) with PEG alone, used twice a day by 40 participants with arterial leg ulcers, for eight weeks or until healing, whichever was sooner. One compared topical application of blood-derived concentrated growth factor (CGF) with standard dressing (polyurethane film or foam); both applied weekly for six weeks by 61 participants with non-healing ulcers (venous, diabetic arterial, neuropathic, traumatic, or vasculitic). Both trials were small, reported results inadequately, and were of low methodological quality. Short follow-up times (six and eight weeks) meant it would be difficult to capture sufficient healing events to allow us to make comparisons between treatments. One trial demonstrated accelerated wound healing in the ketanserin group compared with the control group. In the trial that compared CGF with standard dressings, the number of participants with diabetic arterial ulcers were only reported in the CGF group (9/31), and the number of participants with diabetic arterial ulcers and their data were not reported separately for the standard dressing group. In the CGF group, 66.6% (6/9) of diabetic arterial ulcers showed more than a 50% decrease in ulcer size compared to 6.7% (2/30) of non-healing ulcers treated with standard dressing. We assessed this as very-low certainty evidence due to the small number of studies and arterial ulcer participants, inadequate reporting of methodology and data, and short follow-up period. Only one trial reported side effects (complications), stating that no participant experienced these during follow-up (six weeks, low-certainty evidence). It should also be noted that ketanserin is not licensed in all countries for use in humans. Neither study reported time to ulcer healing, patient satisfaction or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the choice of topical agent or dressing affects the healing of arterial leg ulcers.

Catastrophic Abdominal Wall After Repair of Enterocutaneous Fistula: A Case Study

BACKGROUND

Repair of an enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) is challenging, particularly when complications occur. This case describes the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and microadhesive dressings with polyabsorbent fibers and an acrylic core, with and without lipidocolloid and nano-oligosaccharide factors, in the management of a patient with a large abdominal wound and ECF.

CASE

An 84-year-old woman underwent abdominoperineal resection with colostomy, hysterectomy, and subsequent chemotherapy and radiotherapy for colorectal cancer. She experienced complications, ultimately resulting in ECF of the jejunum. Initial management with NPWT was used to promote abdominal wound healing, while protecting exposed bowel loops proved challenging because of leakage of stoma effluent that impeded the formation of granulation tissue. In order to promote wound healing and prevent infection, we applied a microadhesive dressing composed of polyabsorbent fibers with an acrylic core and lipidocolloid and nano-oligosaccharide factors that facilitated autolytic debridement and healing.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NPWT with the microadhesive dressing proved successful in the management of this complex and challenging ECF.

Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are open skin wounds on the lower leg which can be slow to heal, and are both painful and costly. The point prevalence of open venous leg ulcers in the UK is about 3 cases per 10,000 people, and many people experience recurrent episodes of prolonged ulceration. First-line treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression therapy, but a wide range of dressings and topical treatments are also used. This diversity of treatments makes evidence-based decision-making challenging, and a clear and current overview of all the evidence is required. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of (1) dressings and (2) topical agents for healing venous leg ulcers in any care setting and to rank treatments in order of effectiveness, with assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We updated this search in March 2018; as a result several studies are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults with venous leg ulcers and compared the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of venous leg ulcers: any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open venous leg ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factors and other biological agents, larval therapy and treatments such as laser, heat or ultrasound. Studies were required to report complete wound healing to be eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We conducted this NMA using frequentist meta-regression methods for the efficacy outcome; the probability of complete healing. We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual treatments focusing on comparisons with widely used dressing classes, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 RCTs (7014 participants) in this review. Of these, 59 studies (5156 participants, 25 different interventions) were included in the NMA; resulting in 40 direct contrasts which informed 300 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the network as a whole was of low certainty. This judgement was based on the sparsity of the network leading to imprecision and the general high risk of bias in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses also demonstrated instability in key aspects of the network and results are reported for the extended sensitivity analysis. Evidence for individual contrasts was mainly judged to be low or very low certainty.The uncertainty was perpetuated when the results were considered by ranking the treatments in terms of the probability that they were the most effective for ulcer healing, with many treatments having similar, low, probabilities of being the best treatment. The two most highly-ranked treatments both had more than 50% probability of being the best (sucralfate and silver dressings). However, the data for sucralfate was from one small study, which means that this finding should be interpreted with caution. When exploring the data for silver and sucralfate compared with widely-used dressing classes, there was some evidence that silver dressings may increase the probability of venous leg ulcer healing, compared with nonadherent dressings: RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.74 (moderate-certainty evidence in the context of a low-certainty network). For all other combinations of these five interventions it was unclear whether the intervention increased the probability of healing; in each case this was low- or very low-certainty evidence as a consequence of one or more of imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, largely because of the low certainty of the whole network and of individual comparisons.The results of this NMA focus exclusively on complete healing; whilst this is of key importance to people living with venous leg ulcers, clinicians may wish to take into account other patient-important outcomes and factors such as patient preference and cost.

UrgoClean Ag: evidence base and mode of action

UrgoClean Ag is indicated for all exuding wounds with signs of increased bioburden and biofilm. This article describes the evidence base supporting its efficacy.

Clinical evaluation of a dressing with poly absorbent fibres and a silver matrix for managing chronic wounds at risk of infection: a non comparative trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of a new silver poly absorbent dressing (UrgoCleanAg) in the local management of exudative chronic wounds at risk of infection, with inflammatory signs suggesting heavy bacterial load.

METHOD

This prospective, multicentre, non-comparative clinical trial was conducted in French hospital wards (dermatology and vascular medicine) or specialised private-practice physicians. Patients were considered at high-risk of infection when presenting with at least three of five selected inflammatory clinical signs, suggesting a heavy bacterial load (pain between two dressing changes, erythema, oedema, malodorous wound and presence of a heavy exudate). They were treated for a maximum period of four weeks, and followed by the physician on a weekly basis, including a clinical examination, area tracings and photographs. The primary efficacy criterion of the trial was the relative wound surface area reduction at the end of the four weeks of treatment. Acceptability was documented by the nursing staff at each dressing change between the weekly evaluations.

RESULTS

We recruited 37 patients with chronic wounds. Wound surface area, mostly covered by sloughy tissue, was reduced by 32.5% at the end of the treatment (median value), while the clinical score (maximum value of 5, based on inflammatory clinical signs) decreased from 4.0 to 2.0. Effective debridement properties were documented (62.5% relative reduction of sloughy tissue at week 4; 58.8% of debrided wounds at week 4) and improvement of the periwound skin status was noted (healthy for 28.6% of the patients at week 4 versus 2.7% at baseline). In addition, the tested wound dressing presented a good safety profile associated to a high level of acceptability, noted by both patients and nursing staff.

CONCLUSION

These clinical data support that the tested dressing is a credible therapeutic alternative for the management of chronic wounds at risk of infection with inflammatory signs suggesting heavy bacterial load.

UrgoClean: the evidence base

This chapter describes a dressing, UrgoClean, which can rapidly and effectively reduce wound slough and absorb excess exudate. There is strong evidence to support this, including a randomized controlled trial.

Debridement for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous ulcers (also known as varicose or venous stasis ulcers) are a chronic, recurring and debilitating condition that affects up to 1% of the population. Best practice documents and expert opinion suggests that the removal of devitalised tissue from venous ulcers (debridement) by any one of six methods helps to promote healing. However, to date there has been no review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support this.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of different debriding methods or debridement versus no debridement, on the rate of debridement and wound healing in venous leg ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. In addition we handsearched conference proceedings, journals not cited in MEDLINE, and the bibliographies of all retrieved publications to identify potential studies. We made contact with the pharmaceutical industry to enquire about any completed studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs, either published or unpublished, which compared two methods of debridement or compared debridement with no debridement. We presented study results in a narrative form, as meta-analysis was not possible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independently, two review authors completed all study selection, data extraction and assessment of trial quality; resolution of disagreements was completed by a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 RCTs involving 715 participants. Eight RCTs evaluated autolytic debridement and included the following agents or dressings: biocellulose wound dressing (BWD), non-adherent dressing, honey gel, hydrogel (gel formula), hydrofibre dressing, hydrocolloid dressings, dextranomer beads, Edinburgh University Solution of Lime (EUSOL) and paraffin gauze. Two RCTs evaluated enzymatic preparations and one evaluated biosurgical debridement. No RCTs evaluated surgical, sharp or mechanical methods of debridement, or debridement versus no debridement. Most trials were at a high risk of bias.Three RCTs assessed the number of wounds completely debrided. All three of these trials compared two different methods of autolytic debridement (234 participants), with two studies reporting statistically significant results: one study (100 participants) reported that 40/50 (80%) ulcers treated with dextranomer beads and 7/50 (14%) treated with EUSOL achieved complete debridement (RR 5.71, 95% CI 2.84 to 11.52); while the other trial (86 participants) reported the number of ulcers completely debrided as 31/46 (76%) for hydrogel versus 18/40 (45%) for paraffin gauze (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99). One study (48 participants) reported that by 12 weeks, 15/18 (84%) ulcers treated with BWD had achieved a 75% to 100% clean, granulating wound bed versus 4/15 (26%) treated with non-adherent petrolatum emulsion-impregnated gauze.Four trials assessed the mean time to achieve debridement: one (86 participants) compared two autolytic debridement methods, two compared autolytic methods with enzymatic debridement (71 participants), and the last (12 participants) compared autolytic with biosurgical debridement; none of the results achieved statistical significance.Two trials that assessed autolytic debridement methods reported the number of wounds healed at 12 weeks. One trial (108 participants) reported that 24/54 (44%) ulcers treated with honey healed versus 18/54 (33%) treated with hydrogel (RR (adjusted for baseline wound diameter) 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; P value 0.037). The second trial (48 participants) reported that 7/25 (28%) ulcers treated with BWD healed versus 7/23 (30%) treated with non-adherent dressing.Reduction in wound size was assessed in five trials (444 participants) in which two autolytic methods were compared. Results were statistically significant in one three-armed trial (153 participants) when cadexomer iodine was compared to paraffin gauze (mean difference 24.9 cm², 95% CI 7.27 to 42.53, P value 0.006) and hydrocolloid compared to paraffin gauze (mean difference 23.8 cm², 95% CI 5.48 to 42.12, P value 0.01). A second trial that assessed reduction in wound size based its results on median differences and, at four weeks, produced a statistically significantly result that favoured honey over hydrogel (P value < 0.001). The other three trials reported no statistically significant results for reduction in wound size, although one trial reported that the mean percentage reduction in wound area was greater at six and 12 weeks for BWD versus a non-adherent dressing (44% versus 24% week 6; 74% versus 54% week 12).Pain was assessed in six trials (544 participants) that compared two autolytic debridement methods, but the results were not statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported in any trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to suggest that actively debriding a venous leg ulcer has a clinically significant impact on healing. The overall small number of participants, low number of studies and lack of meta-analysis in this review precludes any strong conclusions of benefit. Comparisons of different autolytic agents (hydrogel versus paraffin gauze; Dextranomer beads versus EUSOL and BWD versus non-adherent dressings) and Larvae versus hydrogel all showed statistically significant results for numbers of wounds debrided. Larger trials with follow up to healing are required.