These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A biological dressing versus 'conventional' treatment in patients with massive burns: a clinical trial.
    Author: Hosseini SN, Mousavinasab SN, Rahmanpour H, Fallahnezhad M.
    Journal: Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg; 2009 Mar; 15(2):135-40. PubMed ID: 19353315.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: For many years, burns were treated by daily saline-soaked dressings until the burns healed primarily. Today, wounds are closed via grafting techniques, or by using synthetic and biological dressings. Due to less experience and interest in the use of biological dressing in developing countries, the aim of this study was to compare the outcome of biological dressings versus 'conventional' treatment in patients with massive burns. METHODS: One hundred eighteen patients with total body surface area (TBSA) burns of 30% to 75%, by flame or scalds, were investigated from October 2002 to June 2006. The patients were divided into two groups. Those in the first group received conventional treatment (n=53) and those in the second group (n=65) received treatment with a biological dressing (Xenoderm). RESULTS: Mortality rates in the conventional group and biological group were 19 (35%) and 7 (10.8%), respectively (p=0.001). The mean hospital stay was 31.3 days vs 18.2 days and the number of dressings was 22.1 vs 9.9, respectively (p=0.0005). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that a biological dressing (Xenoderm) gave a better outcome and lower mortality. However, a randomized clinical trial that compares the number of operations and decreasing need for split thickness skin grafts is warranted.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]