FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, “Fluid Flow in the...

来自 : www.oalib.com/references/7577. 发布时间：2021-03-25

Objectives: Edema in partial-thickness burn wounds can decrease tissueperfusion, increase tissue ischemia, and deepen the burn injury. We report theresults of a clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of a hydro-conductivedressing to our standard burn dressing at removing edema fluid frompartial-thickness burns and present the proposed mechanisms of action of the hydroconductivedressing. Methods: An internally controlled comparison of two wound dressings wasperformed on 10 patients with non-contiguous partial-thickness burns. Eachpatient served as his/her own control. One burn was treated with our standardburn dressing and the other with hydroconductive dressing. Dressings wereweighed prior to application, removed at 24 and 48 hours, weighed, and newpre-weighed dressings applied. Weightgain of each dressing at 24 and 48 hours was determined. Statistics were appliedusing the Student’s paired T-test. The VAS pain scale was measured prior to,during, and after each dressing change. Results: At 24 hours, the hydroconductive dressing had increased 85.6% ± 29.3% inweight compared with 61.3% ± 32.7% for the control (P = 0.053).For the second 24 hour period, the respective numbers were statistically significantlydifferent at 59.7% ± 23.4% vs. 34.2% ± 19.1% (P = 0.038). Averagingthe weight gain over the two dressing periods demonstrated that the differenceswere highly statistically significant as the hydroconductive dressing increasedin weight by 71.0% ± 20.3% compared with 44.5% ± 17.4% for the gauze dressing(P = 0.005). VAS scores revealed no statistical differences. Mechanisms of action included capillary, hydroconductive,and electrostatic actions. Conclusions: A hydroconductive dressing designed to draw off excessive woundfluid removes more wound edema fluid than standard burn gauze dressings.