1
|
Aliakbar Ahovan Z, Esmaeili Z, Eftekhari BS, Khosravimelal S, Alehosseini M, Orive G, Dolatshahi-Pirouz A, Pal Singh Chauhan N, Janmey PA, Hashemi A, Kundu SC, Gholipourmalekabadi M. Antibacterial smart hydrogels: New hope for infectious wound management. Mater Today Bio 2022; 17:100499. [PMID: 36466959 PMCID: PMC9709163 DOI: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2022] [Revised: 10/31/2022] [Accepted: 11/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Millions of people die annually due to uncured wound infections. Healthcare systems incur high costs to treat wound infections. Tt is predicted to become more challenging due to the rise of multidrug-resistant conditions. During the last decades, smart antibacterial hydrogels could attract attention as a promising solution, especially for skin wound infections. These antibacterial hydrogels are termed 'smart' due to their response to specific physical and chemical environmental stimuli. To deliver different drugs to particular sites in a controlled manner, various types of crosslinking strategies are used in the manufacturing process. Smart hydrogels are designed to provide antimicrobial agents to the infected sites or are built from polymers with inherent disinfectant properties. This paper aims to critically review recent pre-clinical and clinical advances in using smart hydrogels against skin wound infections and propose the next best thing for future trends. For this purpose, an introduction to skin wound healing and disease is presented and intelligent hydrogels responding to different stimuli are introduced. Finally, the most promising investigations are discussed in their related sections. These studies can pave the way for producing new biomaterials with clinical applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zahra Aliakbar Ahovan
- Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Zahra Esmaeili
- Cellular and Molecular Research Centre, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Allied Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | | | - Sadjad Khosravimelal
- Cellular and Molecular Research Centre, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Allied Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Morteza Alehosseini
- Department of Materials Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
| | - Gorka Orive
- NanoBioCel Research Group, School of Pharmacy, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
- Biomedical Research Networking Centre in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN). Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
- University Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Oral Implantology - UIRMI (UPV/EHU-Fundación Eduardo Anitua). Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
- Bioaraba, NanoBioCel Research Group, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
- Singapore Eye Research Institute, The Academia, 20 College Road, Discovery Tower, Singapore
| | | | | | - Paul A. Janmey
- Bioengineering Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
| | - Ali Hashemi
- Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Subhas C. Kundu
- 3Bs Research Group, I3Bs - Research Institute on Biomaterials, Biodegradable and Biomimetics, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, University of Minho, AvePark, Guimaraes, Portugal
| | - Mazaher Gholipourmalekabadi
- Cellular and Molecular Research Centre, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Allied Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Department of Tissue Engineering & Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Evaluation of Bacterial Cellulose Dressing versus Vaseline Gauze in Partial Thickness Burn Wounds and Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Two-Center Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE 2022; 2022:5217617. [PMID: 35656475 PMCID: PMC9155909 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5217617] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2021] [Revised: 04/08/2022] [Accepted: 04/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Objective Bacterial cellulose (BC) dressing, which can maintain a moist environment and prevent the invasion of pathogens, has become a competitive dressing material for burn wound treatment. This study was conducted to evaluate the treatment efficacy of a novel China-made BC dressing for the treatment of second-degree burn wounds and skin graft donor sites. Methods 212 patients with second-degree burn wounds or skin graft donor sites were enrolled from two research centers. They were randomly assigned to the BC dressing group (study group) or the Vaseline gauze (VG) dressing group (control group). Wound conditions were assessed before and after treatment. Dressings were changed according to the condition of the wound bed. Healing rate and healing time were recorded as primary endpoints to evaluate the efficacy of BC dressing against VG dressing. Erythema, swelling, exudation, bleeding, subeschar purulence, and pain were assessed as secondary endpoints. Results 207 participants completed the trial and their wounds all healed within 28 days. The average healing times for superficial and deep secondary burn wounds and skin graft donor sites in the BC group were 8.12, 15.77, and 10.55 days, respectively. In the VG group, the average healing times for superficial and deep secondary burn wounds and skin graft donor sites were 9.30, 15.27, and 11.19 days, respectively. The healing time of superficial burn wounds in the BC group was statistically shorter than that in the VG group. There was no difference in the frequency of dressing changing between two groups. The BC dressing showed equal efficacy with the VG dressing at all secondary endpoints. Conclusion The novel BC dressing could be used for the management of second-degree burn wounds and skin graft donor sites. With a shorter healing time in superficial secondary burn wound than that of the VG dressing, the BC dressing showed noninferiority in the treatment of superficial and deep secondary burn wounds and skin graft donor sites versus the VG dressing. This study is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registry number: ChiCTR1800014377 (http://www.chictr.org.cn)).
Collapse
|
3
|
Young AE, Davies A, Bland S, Brookes S, Blazeby JM. Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e025135. [PMID: 30772859 PMCID: PMC6398699 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025135] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research. METHODS Electronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together. RESULTS 147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24). CONCLUSIONS This review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42017060908.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber E Young
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Anna Davies
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Sara Brookes
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|