Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/4264
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMcBride, Craigen
dc.contributor.authorStockton, Kellieen
dc.contributor.authorKimble, Royen
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-07T23:51:01Z-
dc.date.available2022-11-07T23:51:01Z-
dc.date.issued2018en
dc.identifier.citation6 , 2018, p. 33en
dc.identifier.urihttp://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/4264-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: This is a parallel three-arm prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). All three were in current use within the Pegg Leditschke Children's Burn centre (PLCBC), the largest paediatric burns centre in Queensland, Australia. Our objective was to find the best performing dressing, following on from previous trials designed to rationalise dressings for the burn wound itself. METHODS: All children for STSG, with thigh donor sites, were considered for enrolment in the trial. Primary outcome measures were days to re-epithelialisation, and pain. Secondary measures were cost, itch, and scarring at 3 and 6 months. Patients and parents were blinded to group assignment. Blinding of assessors was possible with the dressing in situ, with partial blinding following first dressing change. Blinded photographic assessments of re-epithelialisation were used. Scar assessment was blinded. Covariates for analysis were sex, age, and graft thickness (as measured from a central biopsy). RESULTS: There were 101 patients randomised to the Algisite™ M (33), Cuticerin™ (32), and Sorbact® (36) arms between April 2015 and July 2016. All were analysed for time to re-epithelialisation. Pain scores were not available for all time points in all patients. There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding pain, or time to re-epithelialisation. There were no significant differences for the secondary outcomes of itch, scarring, or cost. Regression analyses demonstrated faster re-epithelialisation in younger patients and decreased donor site scarring at 3 and 6 months with thinner STSG. There were no adverse effects noted. CONCLUSIONS: There are no data supporting a preference for one trial dressing over the others, in donor site wounds (DSW) in children. Thinner skin grafts lead to less donor site scarring in children. Younger patients have faster donor site wound healing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12614000380695).Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/14/QRCH/36).University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (#2014000447).2321-3876McBride, Craig A <br />Orcid: 0000-0001-8377-1748 <br />Kimble, Roy M <br />Stockton, Kellie A <br />Journal Article <br />Burns Trauma. 2018 Nov 27;6:33. doi: 10.1186/s41038-018-0135-y. eCollection 2018. <br />en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofBurns Traumaen
dc.titleProspective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin graftsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s41038-018-0135-yen
dc.subject.keywordsPaediatricsen
dc.subject.keywordsBurnsen
dc.identifier.risid3301en
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeArticle-
Appears in Sites:Children's Health Queensland Publications
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

62
checked on Feb 13, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.