Cargando…

Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts

BACKGROUND: This is a parallel three-arm prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). All three were in current use within the Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burn centre (PLCBC), th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McBride, Craig A., Kimble, Roy M., Stockton, Kellie A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30519595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41038-018-0135-y
_version_ 1783375987880230912
author McBride, Craig A.
Kimble, Roy M.
Stockton, Kellie A.
author_facet McBride, Craig A.
Kimble, Roy M.
Stockton, Kellie A.
author_sort McBride, Craig A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This is a parallel three-arm prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). All three were in current use within the Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burn centre (PLCBC), the largest paediatric burns centre in Queensland, Australia. Our objective was to find the best performing dressing, following on from previous trials designed to rationalise dressings for the burn wound itself. METHODS: All children for STSG, with thigh donor sites, were considered for enrolment in the trial. Primary outcome measures were days to re-epithelialisation, and pain. Secondary measures were cost, itch, and scarring at 3 and 6 months. Patients and parents were blinded to group assignment. Blinding of assessors was possible with the dressing in situ, with partial blinding following first dressing change. Blinded photographic assessments of re-epithelialisation were used. Scar assessment was blinded. Covariates for analysis were sex, age, and graft thickness (as measured from a central biopsy). RESULTS: There were 101 patients randomised to the Algisite™ M (33), Cuticerin™ (32), and Sorbact® (36) arms between April 2015 and July 2016. All were analysed for time to re-epithelialisation. Pain scores were not available for all time points in all patients. There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding pain, or time to re-epithelialisation. There were no significant differences for the secondary outcomes of itch, scarring, or cost. Regression analyses demonstrated faster re-epithelialisation in younger patients and decreased donor site scarring at 3 and 6 months with thinner STSG. There were no adverse effects noted. CONCLUSIONS: There are no data supporting a preference for one trial dressing over the others, in donor site wounds (DSW) in children. Thinner skin grafts lead to less donor site scarring in children. Younger patients have faster donor site wound healing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12614000380695). Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/14/QRCH/36). University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (#2014000447).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6267093
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62670932018-12-05 Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts McBride, Craig A. Kimble, Roy M. Stockton, Kellie A. Burns Trauma Research Article BACKGROUND: This is a parallel three-arm prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). All three were in current use within the Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burn centre (PLCBC), the largest paediatric burns centre in Queensland, Australia. Our objective was to find the best performing dressing, following on from previous trials designed to rationalise dressings for the burn wound itself. METHODS: All children for STSG, with thigh donor sites, were considered for enrolment in the trial. Primary outcome measures were days to re-epithelialisation, and pain. Secondary measures were cost, itch, and scarring at 3 and 6 months. Patients and parents were blinded to group assignment. Blinding of assessors was possible with the dressing in situ, with partial blinding following first dressing change. Blinded photographic assessments of re-epithelialisation were used. Scar assessment was blinded. Covariates for analysis were sex, age, and graft thickness (as measured from a central biopsy). RESULTS: There were 101 patients randomised to the Algisite™ M (33), Cuticerin™ (32), and Sorbact® (36) arms between April 2015 and July 2016. All were analysed for time to re-epithelialisation. Pain scores were not available for all time points in all patients. There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding pain, or time to re-epithelialisation. There were no significant differences for the secondary outcomes of itch, scarring, or cost. Regression analyses demonstrated faster re-epithelialisation in younger patients and decreased donor site scarring at 3 and 6 months with thinner STSG. There were no adverse effects noted. CONCLUSIONS: There are no data supporting a preference for one trial dressing over the others, in donor site wounds (DSW) in children. Thinner skin grafts lead to less donor site scarring in children. Younger patients have faster donor site wound healing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12614000380695). Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/14/QRCH/36). University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (#2014000447). BioMed Central 2018-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6267093/ /pubmed/30519595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41038-018-0135-y Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
McBride, Craig A.
Kimble, Roy M.
Stockton, Kellie A.
Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts
title Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts
title_full Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts
title_fullStr Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts
title_full_unstemmed Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts
title_short Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts
title_sort prospective randomised controlled trial of algisite™ m, cuticerin™, and sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30519595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41038-018-0135-y
work_keys_str_mv AT mcbridecraiga prospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialofalgisitemcuticerinandsorbactasdonorsitedressingsinpaediatricsplitthicknessskingrafts
AT kimbleroym prospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialofalgisitemcuticerinandsorbactasdonorsitedressingsinpaediatricsplitthicknessskingrafts
AT stocktonkelliea prospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialofalgisitemcuticerinandsorbactasdonorsitedressingsinpaediatricsplitthicknessskingrafts