Hydrofiber dressing with silver for the management of split-thickness donor sites

A randomized evaluation of two protocols of care

S. Blome-Eberwein, R. M. Johnson, S. F. Miller, D. M. Caruso, M. H. Jordan, S. Milner, E. E. Tredget, K. M. Sittig, L. Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: This randomized, open-label study evaluated Aquacel Ag® Hydrofiber® dressing with silver (HDS; ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ, USA) with an adherent or gelled protocol in the management of split-thickness donor sites. Methods: HDS was the primary dressing in the adherent group (gauze as secondary covering) and gelled group (transparent film as secondary covering). Dressings were changed on study day 1 or 2 and study days 5 (optional), 10 (optional), and 14. The primary outcome was healing (≥90% re-epithelialization) at study day 14. Results: Seventy subjects were treated (36 adherent, 34 gelled). By study day 14, 77% of donor sites had healed (67% adherent, 88% gelled). Pain scores decreased over time in both treatment groups. Investigators were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with (adherent, gelled) time required to manage dressing change (89%, 79% of subjects), minimization of donor-site pain (64%, 82%), ease of application (97%, 94%), management of drainage (92%, 82%), ease of removal (77%, 85%), and ability of dressing to remain in place (69%, 76%). Thirty-nine (56%) subjects had adverse events, most commonly non-donor-site infection (11%) and gastrointestinal events (11%). Conclusion: In this randomized, open-label study, HDS was well-tolerated, versatile, and effective in the management of split-thickness donor sites.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)665-672
Number of pages8
JournalBurns
Volume36
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2010

Fingerprint

Bandages
Silver
Re-Epithelialization
Pain
Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium
Aptitude
Drainage
Research Personnel
Infection
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Donor site
  • Healing
  • Hydrofiber dressing with silver
  • Pain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Blome-Eberwein, S., Johnson, R. M., Miller, S. F., Caruso, D. M., Jordan, M. H., Milner, S., ... Smith, L. (2010). Hydrofiber dressing with silver for the management of split-thickness donor sites: A randomized evaluation of two protocols of care. Burns, 36(5), 665-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2009.06.193

Hydrofiber dressing with silver for the management of split-thickness donor sites : A randomized evaluation of two protocols of care. / Blome-Eberwein, S.; Johnson, R. M.; Miller, S. F.; Caruso, D. M.; Jordan, M. H.; Milner, S.; Tredget, E. E.; Sittig, K. M.; Smith, L.

In: Burns, Vol. 36, No. 5, 08.2010, p. 665-672.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Blome-Eberwein, S, Johnson, RM, Miller, SF, Caruso, DM, Jordan, MH, Milner, S, Tredget, EE, Sittig, KM & Smith, L 2010, 'Hydrofiber dressing with silver for the management of split-thickness donor sites: A randomized evaluation of two protocols of care', Burns, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 665-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2009.06.193
Blome-Eberwein, S. ; Johnson, R. M. ; Miller, S. F. ; Caruso, D. M. ; Jordan, M. H. ; Milner, S. ; Tredget, E. E. ; Sittig, K. M. ; Smith, L. / Hydrofiber dressing with silver for the management of split-thickness donor sites : A randomized evaluation of two protocols of care. In: Burns. 2010 ; Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 665-672.
@article{30035003e8024a17b28933f4762adad3,
title = "Hydrofiber dressing with silver for the management of split-thickness donor sites: A randomized evaluation of two protocols of care",
abstract = "Background: This randomized, open-label study evaluated Aquacel Ag{\circledR} Hydrofiber{\circledR} dressing with silver (HDS; ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ, USA) with an adherent or gelled protocol in the management of split-thickness donor sites. Methods: HDS was the primary dressing in the adherent group (gauze as secondary covering) and gelled group (transparent film as secondary covering). Dressings were changed on study day 1 or 2 and study days 5 (optional), 10 (optional), and 14. The primary outcome was healing (≥90{\%} re-epithelialization) at study day 14. Results: Seventy subjects were treated (36 adherent, 34 gelled). By study day 14, 77{\%} of donor sites had healed (67{\%} adherent, 88{\%} gelled). Pain scores decreased over time in both treatment groups. Investigators were {"}very satisfied{"} or {"}satisfied{"} with (adherent, gelled) time required to manage dressing change (89{\%}, 79{\%} of subjects), minimization of donor-site pain (64{\%}, 82{\%}), ease of application (97{\%}, 94{\%}), management of drainage (92{\%}, 82{\%}), ease of removal (77{\%}, 85{\%}), and ability of dressing to remain in place (69{\%}, 76{\%}). Thirty-nine (56{\%}) subjects had adverse events, most commonly non-donor-site infection (11{\%}) and gastrointestinal events (11{\%}). Conclusion: In this randomized, open-label study, HDS was well-tolerated, versatile, and effective in the management of split-thickness donor sites.",
keywords = "Donor site, Healing, Hydrofiber dressing with silver, Pain",
author = "S. Blome-Eberwein and Johnson, {R. M.} and Miller, {S. F.} and Caruso, {D. M.} and Jordan, {M. H.} and S. Milner and Tredget, {E. E.} and Sittig, {K. M.} and L. Smith",
year = "2010",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.burns.2009.06.193",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "665--672",
journal = "Burns",
issn = "0305-4179",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hydrofiber dressing with silver for the management of split-thickness donor sites

T2 - A randomized evaluation of two protocols of care

AU - Blome-Eberwein, S.

AU - Johnson, R. M.

AU - Miller, S. F.

AU - Caruso, D. M.

AU - Jordan, M. H.

AU - Milner, S.

AU - Tredget, E. E.

AU - Sittig, K. M.

AU - Smith, L.

PY - 2010/8

Y1 - 2010/8

N2 - Background: This randomized, open-label study evaluated Aquacel Ag® Hydrofiber® dressing with silver (HDS; ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ, USA) with an adherent or gelled protocol in the management of split-thickness donor sites. Methods: HDS was the primary dressing in the adherent group (gauze as secondary covering) and gelled group (transparent film as secondary covering). Dressings were changed on study day 1 or 2 and study days 5 (optional), 10 (optional), and 14. The primary outcome was healing (≥90% re-epithelialization) at study day 14. Results: Seventy subjects were treated (36 adherent, 34 gelled). By study day 14, 77% of donor sites had healed (67% adherent, 88% gelled). Pain scores decreased over time in both treatment groups. Investigators were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with (adherent, gelled) time required to manage dressing change (89%, 79% of subjects), minimization of donor-site pain (64%, 82%), ease of application (97%, 94%), management of drainage (92%, 82%), ease of removal (77%, 85%), and ability of dressing to remain in place (69%, 76%). Thirty-nine (56%) subjects had adverse events, most commonly non-donor-site infection (11%) and gastrointestinal events (11%). Conclusion: In this randomized, open-label study, HDS was well-tolerated, versatile, and effective in the management of split-thickness donor sites.

AB - Background: This randomized, open-label study evaluated Aquacel Ag® Hydrofiber® dressing with silver (HDS; ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ, USA) with an adherent or gelled protocol in the management of split-thickness donor sites. Methods: HDS was the primary dressing in the adherent group (gauze as secondary covering) and gelled group (transparent film as secondary covering). Dressings were changed on study day 1 or 2 and study days 5 (optional), 10 (optional), and 14. The primary outcome was healing (≥90% re-epithelialization) at study day 14. Results: Seventy subjects were treated (36 adherent, 34 gelled). By study day 14, 77% of donor sites had healed (67% adherent, 88% gelled). Pain scores decreased over time in both treatment groups. Investigators were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with (adherent, gelled) time required to manage dressing change (89%, 79% of subjects), minimization of donor-site pain (64%, 82%), ease of application (97%, 94%), management of drainage (92%, 82%), ease of removal (77%, 85%), and ability of dressing to remain in place (69%, 76%). Thirty-nine (56%) subjects had adverse events, most commonly non-donor-site infection (11%) and gastrointestinal events (11%). Conclusion: In this randomized, open-label study, HDS was well-tolerated, versatile, and effective in the management of split-thickness donor sites.

KW - Donor site

KW - Healing

KW - Hydrofiber dressing with silver

KW - Pain

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953123411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953123411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.burns.2009.06.193

DO - 10.1016/j.burns.2009.06.193

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 665

EP - 672

JO - Burns

JF - Burns

SN - 0305-4179

IS - 5

ER -