• Rohit J Kumar, Roy M Kimble, Robert Boots, and Stuart P Pegg.
• Stuart Pegg Burns Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. rohitjkumar@bigpond.com
• ANZ J Surg. 2004 Aug 1;74(8):622-6.

BackgroundThe purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of three burns dressings (TransCyte, a bio-engineered skin substitute; Biobrane; and Silvazine cream (silver sulphadiazine and 0.2% chlorhexidine)), in treating children with partial-thickness burns. The primary objective was to determine the days until > or =90% re-epithelialization. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the number of wounds requiring autografting and the number of dressing changes/local wound care required.MethodsStudy wounds were identified on each patient and the patients were randomized to receive TransCyte or Biobrane or Silvazine. Assessment of study wound closure began at 2 days after treatment and continued at least every other day thereafter until the wounds re-epithelialized or were autografted. A laser Doppler imaging system was used as an adjunct to assessing the depth of the burn.ResultsThirty-three patients with 58 wound sites enrolled in the study (TransCyte, n = 20, Biobrane, n = 17; Silvazine, n = 21). Mean time to re-epithelialization was 7.5 days for TransCyte, 9.5 days for Biobrane, and 11.2 days for Silvazine. The number of wounds requiring autografting were 5/21 (24%) for Silvazine, 3/17 (17%) for Biobrane, and 1/20 (5%) for TransCyte.ConclusionsWhen used in partial-thickness burns in children, TransCyte promotes fastest re-epithelialization and required less overall dressings then Biobrane or Silvazine. Patients who received Silvazine or Biobrane require more autografting than those treated with TransCyte.

30 keywords...

hide…