Xenoderm Versus 1% Silver Sulfadiazine in Partial-thickness Burns

Objective

The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of using lyophilised porcine skin (Xenoderm) compared with 1% silver sulfadiazine (SSD) in partial-thickness burns with regard to wound infection, length of hospital stay, number of dressings and doses of analgesics used (oral and injection).

Methods

A total of 78 burns patients were included in this randomised study; their burns were caused by scalds or flames. They had second degree burns and had a burn area of 10-60% of total body surface area (TBSA). Thirty-seven patients were treated with daily washing, followed by topical application of SSD dressing (the SSD group) and 39 with a biological dressing, i.e. Xenoderm (the Xenoderm group). The differences were evaluated using unpaired Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, TBSA, cause of burn, and thickness of the burn or burn site. But there were significant differences regarding degree of wound infection, length of hospital stay, number of used dressings and given doses of analgesics.

Conclusion

Xenoderm seems to be more effective than SSD dressing in terms of pain control, degree of wound infection, used wound dressings and length of hospital stay for partial-thickness burns. Prospective randomised studies are now necessary to compare possible reductions in the use of split thickness skin grafts and re-epithelialisation times.

Key Words:  biological dressing , partial-thickness burns , silver sulfadiazine , Xenoderm

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.