Cost study of dermal substitutes and topical negative pressure in the surgical treatment of burns

Duragen: A dermal substitute for the management of suboptimal wounds

Using a flap in a large wound with a very small area of exposed vital structures may be an excessive intrusion and cause unnecessary donor site morbidity. Dermal matrix (DuraGen) was applied onto critical areas where bone or tendons were exposed and a split skin graft was placed thereon. All patients had satisfactory wound closure without the need for a flap. DuraGen appears to be a safe, single-stage alternative, to a flap for the healing of complex wounds.

The use of xenogenic dermal matrices in the context of open extremity wounds: where and when to consider?

Optimal treatment of orthopaedic extremity trauma includes meticulous care of both bony and soft tissue injuries. Historically, clinical scenarios involving soft tissue defects necessitated the assistance of a plastic surgeon. While their expertise in coverage options and microvascular repair is invaluable, barriers preventing collaboration are common. Acellular dermal matrices represent a promising and versatile tool for orthopaedic trauma surgeons to keep in their toolbox. These biological scaffolds are each unique in how they are used and promote healing. This review explores some commercial products and offers guidance for selection in different clinical scenarios involving traumatic wounds.

Dermal Regenerative Templates in Orthopaedic Surgery

Management of soft-tissue injuries is a critical principle in the treatment of orthopaedic trauma. Understanding the options for soft-tissue reconstruction is vital for successful patient outcomes. Application of dermal regenerative templates (DRTs) in traumatic wounds has created a new rung in the reconstructive ladder bridging the gap between skin graft and flap coverage. There are multiple DRT products with specific clinical indications and mechanisms of action. This review outlines the up-to-date specifications and uses of DRT in commonly seen orthopaedic injuries.

Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models

Optimal burn scar management has the potential to markedly improve the lives of children, but can require substantial healthcare resources. The study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of three scar management interventions: pressure garment; topical silicone gel; combined pressure garment and topical silicone gel therapy, alongside a randomised controlled trial of these interventions. Participants were children (n = 153) referred for burn scar management following grafting, spontaneous healing after acute burn injury, or reconstructive surgery. Healthcare resource use was costed from a health service perspective (6-months post-burn time-horizon). The mean total scar management cost was lowest in the topical silicone gel group ($382.87 (95% CI $337.72, $443.29)) compared to the pressure garment ($1327.02 (95% CI $1081.46, $1659.95)) and combined intervention $1605.97 ($1077.65, $2694.23)) groups. There were no significant between-group differences in Quality Adjusted Life Year estimates. There was a 70% probability that topical silicone gel dominated pressure garment therapy (was cheaper and more effective), a 29% probability that pressure garment therapy dominated combined therapy, and a 63% probability that topical silicone gel dominated combined therapy. In conclusion, topical silicone gel was the cheaper intervention, and may be favoured in the absence of clear clinical effect favouring pressure garment therapy or a combination of these management approaches.Trial registration: ACTRN12616001100482 (prospectively registered).

A prospective, phase II study on the safety and efficacy of negative pressure closure for the stabilization of split-thickness skin graft in large or muscle-exposing defects: The NPSG study

Several studies have demonstrated the usefulness of negative pressure closure (NPC) for the stabilization of skin grafts because it provides a uniform pressure to the graft. The results of our previous retrospective study also suggested the superiority of NPC over tie-over methods for the stabilization of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) in large or muscle-exposing defects. However, the usefulness of NPC for graft stabilization is yet to be fully established. This prospective, phase II clinical study was conducted to investigate the safety and efficacy of NPC for the stabilization of STSG in large or muscle-exposing defects. Patients who would require STSG for reconstruction of defects in the trunk and extremities other than hands and feet measuring >10 cm in the longest diameter or with muscle exposure were enrolled. NPC was applied for skin graft stabilization. Seven patients who had received wide excision of malignant tumors and resulted in muscle-exposed skin defects were included. All patients underwent meshed STSG. The mean size of the defect was 94.5 cm² (range 63.6-164.9). The mean time from the skin graft harvesting to the NPC stabilization was 15.6 min (range 10.7-19.5). The mean survival rate of the skin graft at postoperative day 7 and 10 was 98.7% (range 97-100) and 96.5% (range 89.4-98.4), respectively. No adverse events associated with the procedure were observed. This prospective study provided further evidence of the safety and efficacy of NPC for STSG stabilization in patients with large or muscle-exposing skin defects.

The Combined Use of Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy and Dermal Substitutes for Tissue Repair and Regeneration

In clinical practice, skin defects occur frequently due to various kinds of acute and chronic diseases. The standard treatment for these wounds is autografting, which usually results in complications such as scar formation and new wounds at donor sites. The advent of dermal substitutes has provided a novel method for wound repair, and rapid angiogenesis of the dermal substitutes is crucial for the graft to take. At present, many strategies have been developed to improve the process of vascularisation, some of which have shown promising potentials, but they could be very far from clinical applications. Most recently, negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used extensively in clinical practice for wound care and management. It has been reported that NPWT reduces the time required for vascular ingrowth into the dermal substitute and improves graft take, indicating great potentials for wound repair. This article presents a comprehensive overview of the combined use of NPWT and dermal substitutes for tissue repair and regeneration. Relative concerns and prospects are also discussed.

Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention.

METHODS

We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Manufacturers and investigators were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome (e.g. wound closure). We assessed publication bias and, if feasible, performed meta-analyses, grading the results into different categories (hint, indication or proof of a greater benefit or harm).

RESULTS

We identified 48 eligible studies of generally low quality with evaluable data for 4315 patients and 30 eligible studies with missing data for at least 1386 patients. Due to potential publication bias (proportion of inaccessible data, 24%), we downgraded our conclusions. A meta-analysis of all wound healing data showed a significant effect in favour of NPWT (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.13, p = 0.008). As further analyses of different definitions of wound closure did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. A meta-analysis of hospital stay (in days) showed a significant difference in favour of NPWT (MD - 4.78, 95% CI - 7.79 to - 1.76, p = 0.005). As further analyses of different definitions of hospital stay/readmission did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. There was neither proof (nor indication nor hint) of greater benefit or harm of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, low-quality data indicate a greater benefit of NPWT versus SWT for wound closure in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. The length of hospital stay is also shortened. The data show no advantages or disadvantages of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes. Publication bias is an important problem in studies on NPWT, underlining that all clinical studies need to be fully reported.

Topical treatment for facial burns

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

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. greater than 90%) wound healing (comparison SSD versus cerium SSD: mean difference (MD) -7.10 days, 95% CI -16.43 to 2.23; 1 study, 142 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence regarding whether topical antimicrobial agents make a difference to wound infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; 1 study, 15 participants). There is low to very low-certainty evidence for the proportion of facial burns requiring surgery, pain, scar quality, adverse effects and length of hospital stay. Skin substitutes versus topical antimicrobial agents There is low-certainty evidence that a skin substitute may slightly reduce time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing, compared with a non-specified antibacterial agent (MD -6.00 days, 95% CI -8.69 to -3.31; 1 study, 34 participants). We are uncertain whether skin substitutes in general make any other difference in effects as the evidence is very low certainty. Outcomes included wound infection, pain, scar quality, adverse effects of treatment and length of hospital stay. Single studies showed contrasting low-certainty evidence. A bioengineered skin substitute may slightly reduce procedural pain (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.95; 34 participants) and background pain (MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.95; 34 participants) compared with an unspecified antimicrobial agent. In contrast, a biological dressing (porcine Xenoderm) might slightly increase pain in superficial burns (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75; 15 participants (30 wounds)) as well as deep partial thickness burns (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.66; 10 participants (20 wounds)), compared with antimicrobial agents (Physiotulle Ag (Coloplast)). Miscellaneous treatments versus miscellaneous treatments Single studies show low to very low-certainty effects of interventions. Low-certainty evidence shows that MEBO may slightly reduce time to complete wound healing compared with saline soaked dressing (MD -1.7 days, 95% CI -3.32 to -0.08; 40 participants). In addition, a cream containing Helix Aspersa may slightly increase the proportion of wounds completely healed at 14 days compared with MEBO (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.15; 43 participants). We are uncertain whether any miscellaneous treatment in the included studies makes a difference in effects for the outcomes wound infection, scar quality, pain and patient satisfaction as the evidence is low to very low-certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Long-term quality of life and cost-effectiveness of treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel vs silver sulfadiazine (FLAM study)

The clinical effectiveness and scar quality of the randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) for treatment of partial thickness burns were previously reported. Enzyme alginogel did not lead to faster wound healing (primary outcome) or less scar formation. In the current study, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), costs, and cost-effectiveness of enzyme alginogel compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns were studied. HRQoL was evaluated using the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire 1 week before discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postburn. Costs were studied from a societal perspective (health care and nonhealth-care costs) for a follow-up period of 1 year. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and comparing differences in societal costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at 1 year postburn. Forty-one patients were analyzed in the enzyme alginogel group and 48 patients in the SSD group. None of the domains of BSHS-B showed a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups. Also, no statistically significant difference in QALYs was found between enzyme alginogel and SSD (difference -0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.09 to 0.03; P = .30). From both the health care and the societal perspective, the difference in costs between enzyme alginogel and SSD was not statistically significant: the difference in health-care costs was €3210 (95% CI, €-1247 to €7667; P = .47) and in societal costs was €3377 (95% CI €-6229 to €12 982; P = .49). The nonsignificant differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years in favor of SSD resulted in a low probability (<25%) that enzyme alginogel is cost-effective compared to SSD. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in quality of life between both treatment groups. Enzyme alginogel is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns.

EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

1. Introduction Since its introduction in clinical practice in the early 1990's negative pressure wounds therapy (NPWT) has become widely used in the management of complex wounds in both inpatient and outpatient care.¹ NPWT has been described as a effective treatment for wounds of many different aetiologies^2,3 and suggested as a gold standard for treatment of wounds such as open abdominal wounds,^4-6 dehisced sternal wounds following cardiac surgery^7,8 and as a valuable agent in complex non-healing wounds.^9,10 Increasingly, NPWT is being applied in the primary and home-care setting, where it is described as having the potential to improve the efficacy of wound management and help reduce the reliance on hospital-based care.¹¹ While the potential of NPWT is promising and the clinical use of the treatment is widespread, highlevel evidence of its effectiveness and economic benefits remain sparse.^12-14 The ongoing controversy regarding high-level evidence in wound care in general is well known. There is a consensus that clinical practice should be evidence-based, which can be difficult to achieve due to confusion about the value of the various approaches to wound management; however, we have to rely on the best available evidence. The need to review wound strategies and treatments in order to reduce the burden of care in an efficient way is urgent. If patients at risk of delayed wound healing are identified earlier and aggressive interventions are taken before the wound deteriorates and complications occur, both patient morbidity and health-care costs can be significantly reduced. There is further a fundamental confusion over the best way to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in this complex patient population. This is illustrated by reviews of the value of various treatment strategies for non-healing wounds, which have highlighted methodological inconsistencies in primary research. This situation is confounded by differences in the advice given by regulatory and reimbursement bodies in various countries regarding both study design and the ways in which results are interpreted. In response to this confusion, the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) has been publishing a number of interdisciplinary documents^15-19 with the intention of highlighting: The nature and extent of the problem for wound management: from the clinical perspective as well as that of care givers and the patients Evidence-based practice as an integration of clinical expertise with the best available clinical evidence from systematic research The nature and extent of the problem for wound management: from the policy maker and healthcare system perspectives The controversy regarding the value of various approaches to wound management and care is illustrated by the case of NPWT, synonymous with topical negative pressure or vacuum therapy and cited as branded VAC (vacuum-assisted closure) therapy. This is a mode of therapy used to encourage wound healing. It is used as a primary treatment of chronic wounds, in complex acute wounds and as an adjunct for temporary closure and wound bed preparation preceding surgical procedures such as skin grafts and flap surgery. Aim An increasing number of papers on the effect of NPWT are being published. However, due to the low evidence level the treatment remains controversial from the policy maker and health-care system's points of view-particularly with regard to evidence-based medicine. In response EWMA has established an interdisciplinary working group to describe the present knowledge with regard to NPWT and provide overview of its implications for organisation of care, documentation, communication, patient safety, and health economic aspects. These goals will be achieved by the following: Present the rational and scientific support for each delivered statement Uncover controversies and issues related to the use of NPWT in wound management Implications of implementing NPWT as a treatment strategy in the health-care system Provide information and offer perspectives of NPWT from the viewpoints of health-care staff, policy makers, politicians, industry, patients and hospital administrators who are indirectly or directly involved in wound management.

Use of negative pressure wound therapy in burn patients

According to previous research, adjunctive negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can help manage infected wounds when applied along with appropriate debridement and antibiotic therapy as deemed clinically relevant. NPWT not only removes fluid, and reduces oedema, but also promotes perfusion around the wounds. In addition, NPWT may lead to improved graft fixation when used as a bolster, especially in patients who are less compliant or have poor graft fixation that result from using traditional methods. NPWT is a good choice to bolster skin grafts in young, active and less-compliant patients. We propose an enhanced segmental compartment-covered technique, which uses NPWT adjunctively as first-line wound treatment to help manage postoperative infection. Moreover, NPWT promotes granulation tissue formation to prepare the wound bed for subsequent skin graft and may be used as a bolster over the graft, which helps to attain skin graft viability.

Economic burden of burn injuries in the Netherlands: A 3 months follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

Burn care has rapidly improved in the past decades. However, healthcare innovations can be expensive, demanding careful choices on their implementation. Obtaining knowledge on the extent of the costs of burn injuries is an essential first step for economic evaluations within burn care. The objective of this study was to determine the economic burden of patients with burns admitted to a burn centre and to identify important cost categories until 3 months post-burn.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted in the burn centre of Maasstad Hospital Rotterdam, the Netherlands, including all patients with acute burn related injuries from August 2011 until July 2012. Total costs were calculated from a societal perspective, until 3 months post injury. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine whether the mean total costs per patient differed by age, aetiology or percentage total body surface area (TBSA) burned.

RESULTS

In our population, with a mean burn size of 8%, mean total costs were €26,540 per patient varying from €742 to €235,557. Most important cost categories were burn centre days (62%), surgical interventions (5%) and work absence (20%). Flame burns were significantly more costly than other types of burns, adult patients were significantly more costly than children and adolescents and a higher percentage TBSA burned also corresponded to significantly higher costs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Mean total costs of burn care in the first 3 months post injury were estimated at €26,540 and depended on age, aetiology and TBSA. Mean total costs in our population probably apply to other high-income countries as well, although we should realise that patients with burn injuries are diverse and represent a broad range of total costs. To reduce costs of burn care, future intervention studies should focus on a timely wound healing, reducing length of stay and enabling an early return to work.

Dermal skin substitutes for upper limb reconstruction: current status, indications, and contraindications

Dermal skin substitutes are a group of biologically engineered materials composed of collagen and glycosaminoglycans and are devoid of cellular structures. These biodegradable materials act as an artificial dermis to promote neovascularization and neodermis formation. Their applications in soft tissue reconstructions are rapidly expanding. In this article, the indications, advantages, and limitations of dermal skin substitutes for reconstruction of soft tissue defects of the upper extremity are reviewed.