The safety and efficacy of feracrylum as compared to silver sulfadiazine in the management of deep partial thickness burn: A clinical study report

Topical treatment for facial burns

BACKGROUND

Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our most expressive means of communication. Topical interventions are currently the cornerstone of treatment of burns to the face.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this first update, we included 12 RCTs, comprising 507 participants. Most trials included adults admitted to specialised burn centres after recent burn injuries. Topical agents included antimicrobial agents (silver sulphadiazine (SSD), Aquacel-Ag, cerium-sulphadiazine, gentamicin cream, mafenide acetate cream, bacitracin), non-antimicrobial agents (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO), saline-soaked dressings, skin substitutes (including bioengineered skin substitute (TransCyte), allograft, and xenograft (porcine Xenoderm), and miscellaneous treatments (growth hormone therapy, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor hydrogel (rhGMCS)), enzymatic debridement, and cream with Helix Aspersa extract). Almost all the evidence included in this review was assessed as low or very low-certainty, often because of high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation procedures (i.e. sequence generation and allocation concealment); lack of blinding of participants, providers and sometimes outcome assessors; and imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates or both, often in single studies. Topical antimicrobial agents versus topical non-antimicrobial agents There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between antimicrobial agents and non-antimicrobial agents (SSD and MEBO) in time to complete wound healing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.85, 1 study, 39 participants). Topical antimicrobial agents may make little or no difference to the proportion of wounds completely healed compared with topical non-antimicrobial agents (comparison SSD and MEBO, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29; 1 study, 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel-Ag) and MEBO; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21; 1 study, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing. There is low-certainty evidence for the secondary outcomes scar quality and patient satisfaction. Two studies assessed pain but it was incompletely reported. Topical antimicrobial agents versus other topical antimicrobial agents It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low-certainty. For primary outcomes, there is low-certainty evidence for time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing (comparison SSD versus cerium SSD: mean difference (MD) -7.10 days, 95% CI -16.43 to 2.23; 1 study, 142 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence regarding whether topical antimicrobial agents make a difference to wound infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; 1 study, 15 participants). There is low to very low-certainty evidence for the proportion of facial burns requiring surgery, pain, scar quality, adverse effects and length of hospital stay. Skin substitutes versus topical antimicrobial agents There is low-certainty evidence that a skin substitute may slightly reduce time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing, compared with a non-specified antibacterial agent (MD -6.00 days, 95% CI -8.69 to -3.31; 1 study, 34 participants). We are uncertain whether skin substitutes in general make any other difference in effects as the evidence is very low certainty. Outcomes included wound infection, pain, scar quality, adverse effects of treatment and length of hospital stay. Single studies showed contrasting low-certainty evidence. A bioengineered skin substitute may slightly reduce procedural pain (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.95; 34 participants) and background pain (MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.95; 34 participants) compared with an unspecified antimicrobial agent. In contrast, a biological dressing (porcine Xenoderm) might slightly increase pain in superficial burns (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75; 15 participants (30 wounds)) as well as deep partial thickness burns (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.66; 10 participants (20 wounds)), compared with antimicrobial agents (Physiotulle Ag (Coloplast)). Miscellaneous treatments versus miscellaneous treatments Single studies show low to very low-certainty effects of interventions. Low-certainty evidence shows that MEBO may slightly reduce time to complete wound healing compared with saline soaked dressing (MD -1.7 days, 95% CI -3.32 to -0.08; 40 participants). In addition, a cream containing Helix Aspersa may slightly increase the proportion of wounds completely healed at 14 days compared with MEBO (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.15; 43 participants). We are uncertain whether any miscellaneous treatment in the included studies makes a difference in effects for the outcomes wound infection, scar quality, pain and patient satisfaction as the evidence is low to very low-certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is mainly low to very low-certainty evidence on the effects of any topical intervention on wound healing in people with facial burns. The number of RCTs in burn care is growing, but the body of evidence is still hampered due to an insufficient number of studies that follow appropriate evidence-based standards of conducting and reporting RCTs.

The in vitro antibacterial activity of incomplete iron salt of polyacrylic acid against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and meticillin-resistant S. aureus

BACKGROUND

The incomplete iron salt of polyacrylic acid (IIS-PAA) has been used for its haemostatic, wound healing and antibacterial properties in human patients. IIS-PAA is a water-soluble, acidic, hydrophilic polymer that is active at pH 2.9-4.0.

HYPOTHESES/OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the antibacterial effect of IIS-PAA against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) and meticillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA).

METHODS

This was a prospective, nonblinded in vitro study. Sixty canine isolates of P. aeruginosa, MRSP and MRSA were included. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of IIS-PAA were determined by agar dilution on Mueller-Hinton agar using testing concentrations ranging from 0.0625-0.4% (raw material 100%) and based on Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines.

RESULTS

The median MIC for P. aeruginosa was 0.2% (range 0.2-0.3%), mean 0.2% and standard deviation (SD) of 0.018%. The median MIC for MRSP was 0.05% (0.025-0.1%), mean 0.058% and SD 0.022%, and the median MIC for MRSA was 0.1% (0.00625-0.4%), mean 0.126% and SD 0.080%. There were significant differences in MICs between the three bacteria types with MICs highest for Pseudomonas and lowest for MRSP (all P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

IIS-PAA had in vitro antibacterial activity against three important bacterial pathogens. Further studies of IIS-PAA are indicated to assess the potential clinical benefit and in vitro studies to investigate the spectrum of anti-bacterial activity and mode of action.

The effect of Terminalia chebula extract vs. silver sulfadiazine on burn wounds in rats

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ethanol extract of Terminalia chebula in the treatment of hot water-induced burn wounds and to compare the results with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) in rats.

METHODS

Five groups of ten rats were burned with hot water. Animals were administrated with topical cream at control, normal saline, 5%, 10% T. chebula extracts and standard SSD creams. Several parameters were assessed, including wound area, visual inspection of wound, bacteriology assessment, percentage of wound contraction and histopathological examination.

RESULTS

The average area of wound on 10th day was 11.2 ± 3.3, 11 ± 3.2, 8.5 ± 2.3, 9.5 ± 4.2 and 5.1 ± 2.2 cm(2) for SSD1%, base cream, normal saline, herbal extract 5% and 10%, respectively. T. chebula 10% cream exhibited lower wound size than SSD1% and control groups at 10th day post burn injury. On day 15, the percentage of wound contraction in T. chebula was 5% and 10% more than 18% and 53% in comparison to SSD1% group, respectively. Histopathological results exhibited well-formed horizontally oriented collagen fibers for appropriate tension. Strength of scar on burned tissue was better in T. chebula 5% and 10% as compared with control and SSD groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that T. chebula extract was capable of accelerating wound healing in rats by wound contraction, and had beneficial effects more than SSD 1% cream in the management of burn injury.