The study comprises 27 operated patients with similar burns. Fifteen donor sites treated with Acticoat (Smith & Nephew) and 12 donor sites treated with Allevyn (Smith & Nephew) have been analyzed with respect to epithelization time, antibacterial effect, ease of dressing change, pain, and pharmacologic and costeffective characteristics. All donor sites after the reepithelization were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale for the assessment of scars at the fourth, eighth, and 12th weeks. The obtained results demonstrate statistically significant faster epithelization (P ϭ 0.012 on the eighth day and P ϭ 0.0081 on the 10th day) and better comfort for the patient with the Acticoat dressing (P Ͻ 0.05). With regard to bacterial growth (P Ͼ 0.05) there is no statistically significant difference in the application of Acticoat and Allevyn. The Vancouver Scar Scale assessment shows no statistically significant difference (P Ͼ 0.05) in the application of both Acticoat and Allevyn. There is no considerable difference in the cost of treatment between both dressings. The results obtained determine both dressings as suitable for application on donor sites. If there is a possibility of choice, the Acticoat dressing is preferable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.