Rehan M, Iqbal T, Tariq M H, Khan M S, Tul Ain Q, Sarwar M U, Waheed U
Department of Burn and Reconstructive Surgery, National Burn Care Centre, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2024 Sep 30;37(3):226-232. eCollection 2024 Sep.
The management of burn wounds is a major challenge throughout the globe. Superficial and partial-thickness burns generally do not need any surgical intervention, however, severe cases of burn injury require dressings (antimicrobial) and surgery in the worst-case scenario. The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy of bacterial nanocellulose dressing versus hydrocolloid dressing. All patients presenting with partial-thickness second-degree burns from June 2021 to May 2022 were screened for this randomized control trial; 65 burn patients were included in each group of this trial. The control group of patients was treated with hydrocolloid dressing and the experimental group with bacterial nanocellulose dressing sheets. Every third day, the wound was assessed. Other data collected included age, sex, %TBSA burned, signs of infection, time for epithelialization, and length of hospital stay. Statistical analyses were performed to see the significance of differences between the treatment groups by adjusting for size and depth of burn, and the patient's age. There were 130 patients (65 in each group). The median age for the whole group was 17.4 years, and 51.53% (n=67) were males. The average TBSA was 22.4%, with a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 31%. Eleven of the patients had their burns excised, and four were given skin grafts in the control group. In the case of the experimental group, four excisions were performed, and one skin graft. Wound-related pain scores were low (mean of 2.6) for the bacterial nanocellulose group and higher for the hydrocolloid group. Hydrocolloid dressing is more cost effective than bacterial nanocellulose dressing. However, the pain scores were high, and healing time was less in the bacterial nanocellulose group. Moreover, the hydrocolloid group is more prone to infection due to frequent dressing changes.
烧伤创面的处理是全球面临的一项重大挑战。浅度和部分深度烧伤通常无需任何手术干预，然而，严重烧伤病例在最坏情况下需要进行敷料（抗菌）和手术治疗。本研究旨在评估细菌纳米纤维素敷料与水胶体敷料的疗效。对2021年6月至2022年5月期间所有出现深二度烧伤的患者进行筛选，纳入这项随机对照试验；该试验每组纳入65例烧伤患者。对照组患者采用水胶体敷料治疗，实验组采用细菌纳米纤维素敷料片治疗。每隔三天对创面进行评估。收集的其他数据包括年龄、性别、烧伤总面积百分比、感染迹象、上皮化时间和住院时间。通过调整烧伤面积、深度和患者年龄，进行统计分析以观察治疗组之间差异的显著性。共有130例患者（每组65例）。全组的中位年龄为17.4岁，男性占51.53%（n = 67）。平均烧伤总面积为22.4%，最小为10%，最大为31%。对照组中有11例患者进行了烧伤创面切除，4例接受了皮肤移植。在实验组中，进行了4例切除手术和1例皮肤移植。细菌纳米纤维素组的创面相关疼痛评分较低（平均为2.6），水胶体组较高。水胶体敷料比细菌纳米纤维素敷料更具成本效益。然而，细菌纳米纤维素组的疼痛评分较高，愈合时间较短。此外，由于频繁更换敷料，水胶体组更容易感染。
