• Maya Argirova, Ognjan Hadjiski, and Anastasija Victorova.
• Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Emergency Medical Institute Pirogov, Sofia, Bulgaria. maya_arguirova@yahoo.com
• Ann Plast Surg. 2007 Oct 1; 59 (4): 415-22.

AbstractThe 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 cost-effective 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 = 0.012 on the eighth day and P = 0.0081 on the 10th day) and better comfort for the patient with the Acticoat dressing (P < 0.05). With regard to bacterial growth (P > 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 > 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.

18 keywords...

hide…