A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Acute healing outcomes in paediatric partial thickness burns using Epiprotect® and Biobrane®: A retrospective comparative study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Aim: To compare the acute healing outcomes of Biobrane® and Epiprotect® in paediatric partial thickness (PT) burns.

Methods: All paediatric patients (age <18 years) with PT burns managed using either Biobrane® or Epiprotect® over a 5-year period at our burns unit were included. The primary outcome was time to complete healing. Secondary outcomes included adherence, infection rates, length of hospital stay, duration of acute follow-up and return to the theatre.

Results: Among the 99 patients included, 38 received Epiprotect® and 61 received Biobrane®. The mean total body surface area (TBSA) was 6% (range 1%-15%) and median age was 21 months (range 5-169 months). Median time to healing in the Epiprotect® group was 19.5 days and 16 days in the Biobrane® group (P = .14). The median hospitalisation length was the same for both products (2 days, P = .85). Infection rate was lower in the Epiprotect® group (2.6% vs 16.4%, P = .048). There was no difference in adherence rate. These trends were preserved when depth sub-groups were analysed. Adherence and infection rates were not affected by post-operative antibiotics (P > .99 and P = .65, respectively) in either group. The rate of return to the theatre for further surgery was 13.2% for both products (P > .99).

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that acute healing outcomes with Epiprotect® in paediatric PT burns are comparable to those with Biobrane®, with significantly lower infection rates for Epiprotect®. These results suggest that Epiprotect® is a viable alternative to Biobrane®. Nevertheless, further prospective randomised studies are required to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2024.05.026DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

acute healing
12
healing outcomes
12
paediatric partial
8
partial thickness
8
epiprotect® paediatric
8
epiprotect®
5
outcomes
4
paediatric
4
outcomes paediatric
4
thickness burns
4

Similar Publications