orabase and Facial-Injuries

Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our most expressive means of communication. Topical interventions are currently the cornerstone of treatment of burns to the face.. To assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth.. In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review.. Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.. In this first update, we included 12 RCTs, comprising 507 participants. Most trials included adults admitted to specialised burn centres after recent burn injuries. Topical agents included antimicrobial agents (silver sulphadiazine (SSD), Aquacel-Ag, cerium-sulphadiazine, gentamicin cream, mafenide acetate cream, bacitracin), non-antimicrobial agents (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO), saline-soaked dressings, skin substitutes (including bioengineered skin substitute (TransCyte), allograft, and xenograft (porcine Xenoderm), and miscellaneous treatments (growth hormone therapy, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor hydrogel (rhGMCS)), enzymatic debridement, and cream with Helix Aspersa extract). Almost all the evidence included in this review was assessed as low or very low-certainty, often because of high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation procedures (i.e. sequence generation and allocation concealment); lack of blinding of participants, providers and sometimes outcome assessors; and imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates or both, often in single studies. Topical antimicrobial agents versus topical non-antimicrobial agents There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between antimicrobial agents and non-antimicrobial agents (SSD and MEBO) in time to complete wound healing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.85, 1 study, 39 participants). Topical antimicrobial agents may make little or no difference to the proportion of wounds completely healed compared with topical non-antimicrobial agents (comparison SSD and MEBO, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29; 1 study, 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel-Ag) and MEBO; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21; 1 study, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing. There is low-certainty evidence for the secondary outcomes scar quality and patient satisfaction. Two studies assessed pain but it was incompletely reported. Topical antimicrobial agents versus other topical antimicrobial agents It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low-certainty. For primary outcomes, there is low-certainty evidence for time to partial (i.e.. There is mainly low to very low-certainty evidence on the effects of any topical intervention on wound healing in people with facial burns. The number of RCTs in burn care is growing, but the body of evidence is still hampered due to an insufficient number of studies that follow appropriate evidence-based standards of conducting and reporting RCTs.

Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Infective Agents; Bias; Burns; Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium; Facial Injuries; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin, Artificial; Wound Healing

The face is the central point of the physical features; it transmits expressions and emotions, communicates feelings and allows for individual identity. Facial burns are very common and are devastating to the affected patient and results into numerous physical, emotional and psychosocial sequels. Partial thickness facial burns are very common especially among children. This study compares the effect of standard moist open technique management and a moist closed technique for partial thickness burns of the face.. Patients with partial-thickness facial burns admitted in the burn unit, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt in the period from April 2009 to December 2009 were included in this study. They were divided into two groups to receive either open treatment with MEBO(®) (n=20) or coverage with Aquacel(®) Ag (n=20). Demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, TBSA, burn areas), length of hospital stay (LOS), rate of infections, time to total healing, frequency of dressing changes, pain, cost benefit and patient discomfort were compared between the two groups. The long-term outcome (incidence of hypertrophic scarring) was assessed for up to 6 months follow-up period.. There were no significant differences in demographics between the two groups. In the group treated with the Aquacel(®) Ag, the mean time for re-epithelialization was 10.5 days, while it was 12.4 days in the MEBO(®) group (p<0.05). Frequency of changes, pain and patient discomfort were less with Aquacel(®) Ag. Cost was of no significant difference between the two groups. Scar quality improved in the Aquacel(®) Ag treatment group. Three and 6 months follow-up was done and long-term outcomes were recorded in both groups.. Moist occlusive dressing (Aquacel(®) Ag) significantly improves the management and healing rate of partial thickness facial burns with better long-term outcome compared to moist open dressing (MEBO(®)).

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Bandages; Burns; Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium; Child; Child, Preschool; Egypt; Facial Injuries; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Occlusive Dressings; Pain Measurement; Silver Compounds; Sitosterols; Wound Healing; Young Adult