• S Kordestani, M Shahrezaee, M N Tahmasebi, H Hajimahmodi, D Haji Ghasemali, and M S Abyaneh.
• Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amir Kabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. ss.kordestani@chitotech.com
• J Wound Care. 2008 Jul 1; 17 (7): 323-7.

ObjectiveTo compare the wound healing rate and incidence of infection in wounds treated with either a bioactive dressing (containing hydrophilic mucopolysaccharide, chitosan) or conservative treatment (gauze).MethodEighty-five patients with diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers or leg ulcers were randomised to receive either the bioactive study dressing (n=33 patients, 45 wounds) or the control dressing (n=52 patients, 53 wounds) for 21 days. Wound size, stage where appropriate and the presence of infection were recorded at each dressing change. Thirty-one of these 85 patients dropped out of the study during the three-month post-treatment follow-up, when wound size and grade were assessed on a monthly basis. Data were therefore analysed on 54 patients, of whom 32 (34 wounds) were in the treatment group and 22 (26 wounds) in the control group.ResultsIn the control group, four pressure ulcers healed, but the remaining wounds all deteriorated and became infected, requiring antibiotics. In contrast, in the treatment group 29/34 wounds healed completely, and none became infected; the remaining five wounds healed during the follow-up period. The difference between the two groups in the number of wounds that healed was statistically significant (p<0.001), as was that for the number of healed pressure ulcers p<0.05.ConclusionUse of a moist bioactive wound dressing significantly increased the healing rate when compared with the traditional dressings used in the participating hospitals. This will in turn bring significant cost savings.

44 keywords...

hide…