An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study was implemented to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (Mepilex Ag) vs silver sulfadiazine cream (control) in the treatment of partial-thickness thermal burns. Individuals aged 5 years and older with partial-thickness thermal burns (2.5-20% BSA) were randomized into two groups and treated with the trial products for 21 days or until healed, whichever occurred first. Data were obtained and analyzed on cost (direct and indirect), healing rates, pain, comfort, ease of product use, and adverse events. A total of 101 subjects were recruited. There were no significant differences in burn area profiles within the groups. The cost of dressing-related analgesia was lower in the intervention group (P = .03) as was the cost of background analgesia (P = .07). The mean total cost of treatment was $309 vs $513 in the control (P < .001). The average cost-effectiveness per treatment regime was $381 lower in the intervention product, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1688 in favor of the soft silicone foam dressing. Mean healing rates were 71.7 vs 60.8% at final visit, and the number of dressing changes were 2.2 vs 12.4 in the treatment and control groups, respectively. Subjects reported significantly less pain at application (P = .02) and during wear (P = .048) of the Mepilex Ag dressing in the acute stages of wound healing. Clinicians reported the intervention dressing was significantly easier to use (P = .03) and flexible (P = .04). Both treatments were well tolerated; however, the total incidence of adverse events was higher in the control group. The silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing was as effective in the treatment of patients as the standard care (silver sulfadiazine). In addition, the group of patients treated with the soft silicone foam dressing demonstrated decreased pain and lower costs associated with treatment.

A group of international experts met in May 2006 to develop clinical guidelines on the practical application of vacuum assisted closure (V.A.C.)+ therapy in deep sternal wound infections. Group discussion and an anonymous interactive voting system were used to develop content. The recommendations are based on current evidence or, where this was not available, the majority consensus of the international group. The principles of treatment for deep sternal wound infections include early recognition and treatment of infection. V.A.C. therapy should be instigated early, following thorough wound irrigation and surgical debridement. V.A.C. therapy in deep sternal wound infections requires specialist surgical supervision and should only be undertaken by clinicians with adequate experience and training in the use of the technique.

Wound complications involving large subcutaneous vessels can cause significant challenges for surgeons. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been increasingly used for treating complex wounds in vascular surgery, including groin infections, either as a bridge to surgical closure or as a primary wound treatment modality. Although a growing body of evidence exists for managing various problematic wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers and open abdominal wounds, the role of NPWT in wounds involving large blood vessels or wounds complicating infected vascular grafts has not been well defined. A multidisciplinary advisory panel reviewed the literature relevant to wounds related to vascular surgical procedures and complications, focusing on large subcutaneous or infected vascular conduits. The results supported by the literature and the clinical practice of the consensus panel suggested that NPWT can be a useful adjunct to the management of vascular groin infections and dehiscences but must be used with caution.

No abstract

No abstract