• Adam J Singer, Nigel Zhang, and Evyatar Baer.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, United States. Electronic address: adam.singer@stonybrook.edu.
• Burns. 2020 Nov 1; 46 (7): 1674-1680.

BackgroundBurn injury progression in the secondary zone of ischemia is common leading to delayed healing and increased scarring. We hypothesized that a topical surfactant, would reduce burn injury progression in a validated rat comb burn model compared with topical antibiotic ointment.MethodsWe created 40 comb burns on 20 rats which were randomized to daily topical application of the surfactant or a triple antibiotic ointment. The comb burns consisted of 4 full thickness burns with 3 unburned interspaces between the 4 burns. These unburned interspaces represented the zone of ischemia, and when left untreated, generally progress to full thickness necrosis within several days. Comb burns were assessed daily for the presence of gross necrosis of the interspaces. At 7 days the comb burns were excised and blindly evaluated for the presence of histological evidence of necrosis. The study had 80% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentages of necrotic interspaces on day 7.ResultsThere were no differences in the percentages of histologically necrotic interspaces at 7 days in burns treated with the surfactant or antibiotic ointment (85% [95%CI, 74 to 92] vs. 75% [95%CI, 63 to 84]; mean difference 10% [95%CI -4 to 24]). There were also no between group differences in the percentages of grossly necrotic interspaces on any of the seven days of the experiment. The surfactant remained intact and adherent while the antibiotic had been absorbed at each daily dressing change.ConclusionsA topical surfactant did not reduce injury progression in the rat comb burn model when compared with antibiotic ointment. The surfactant was more durable than the antibiotic ointment.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…