• Miriam Renkert, Florentine Günter, Christoph Mohr, Kristina Maurer, Merely Michaela Klinke Petrowsky, Michael Boettcher, and Julia Elrod.
• Department of Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, Mannheim 68167, Germany.
• Burns. 2024 Dec 1; 50 (9): 107206107206.

BackgroundPediatric thermal injuries can have profound physical and psychological effects. Long-term care, including wound dressing selection, significantly impacts outcomes. This study compared treatment related variables and long-term results of bacterial nanocellulose (BNC) and polyurethane foam (PU-foam) dressings in pediatric burn care.MethodsA prospective cohort study comparing BNC (2018-2020) and PU-foam (2016-2018) in pediatric burn patients. Data included demographics, wound characteristics, infection rates, treatment duration, anesthesia procedures, dressing changes, scar assessments (POSAS, VSS), colorimeter measurements, and quality of life (CDLQI). Regression analyses were performed to correct for differences in burn depth.ResultsAfter correction for burn depth, BNC showed a shorter hospital stay duration (p = 0.007), a lower number of procedures under general anesthesia (p<0.0001) and a reduced number of inpatient dressing changes (p = 0.006), compared to PU-foam, whereas wound infection rates did not differ between the treatment groups (p = 0.169). Scar outcomes (POSAS, VSS, colorimeter measurements) and quality of life (CDLQI) were comparable for both treatments.DiscussionBNC dressing benefits include significantly fewer anesthesia procedures, a reduced number of inpatient dressing changes and a shorter hospital stays, supporting the use of BNC dressing. Long-term scar outcomes with BNC are comparable to established dressings like PU-foam. Further randomized trials are necessary to confirm these findings.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Burns Injuries. All rights reserved.

28 keywords...

hide…