Jennifer Lynn Schiefer

Since burn wound infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) lead to major complications and sepsis, this study evaluates the antimicrobial efficacy of the wound irrigation solutions Prontosan (PRT), Lavanox (LAV), citric acid (CA) and mafenide acetate (MA) using microbiology assays and an ex vivo skin wound model. In suspension assays, all the solutions showed significant reductions in bacterial number (log10 reduction: CA 5.77; LAV 4.91; PRT 4.74; MA 1.23). The biofilm assay revealed that PRT and LAV reduced biofilm formation by ~25% after a 15 min treatment, while PRT was most effective after a 24 h treatment (~68%). The number of PA in biofilms measured directly after a 15 min treatment was reduced most effectively with CA and LAV (log10 reductions ~2.5), whereas after a 24 h treatment, all solutions achieved only 1.36–1.65 log10 reductions. In the skin wound model, PRT and LAV provided the highest bacterial reduction after a 15 min treatment (log10 reduction 1.8–1.9), while MA was more effective after a 22 h treatment (log10 reduction 3.6). The results demonstrated the antimicrobial efficacy of all solutions against PA. Further investigation is needed to explore the potential clinical applications of a combination or alternating use of these solutions for infection prophylaxis and treatment of wound infections caused by PA.

Background and Objectives: Good scar management in burn care is essential. Nevertheless, there are no consistent recommendations regarding moisturizers for scar management. Our aim was to investigate and compare the effects of commonly used products on normal skin and burn scars. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 skin-healthy (control group) and 12 patients with burn scars were included in this study. For an intraindividual comparison, each participant received creams consisting of dexpanthenol (P), aloe vera (A), and a natural plant oil (O) with instructions to apply them daily to a previously defined area for at least 28 days. Objective scar evaluation was performed with Visioscan®; Tewameter®; Cutometer®, and the Oxygen To See® device. Subjective evaluation was performed with an “application” questionnaire, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), and with the “best of three” questionnaire. Results: After (A) a high trend of amelioration of +30%, TEWL was detected on the scar area. Blood flow increased slightly on healthy skin areas after (A) application to +104%. The application of (A) on healthy skin demonstrated a positive effect on the parameters of scaliness (+22%, p < 0.001), softness (+14%, p = 0.046), roughness R1 (+16%, p < 0.001) and R2 (+17%, p = 0.000), volume (+22%, p < 0.001), and surface area (+7%, p < 0.001) within the control group. After (P), a significant improvement of the baseline firmness parameter of +14.7% was detected (p = 0.007). (P) also showed a beneficial effect on the parameters of R1 (+7%, p = 0.003), R2 (+6%, p = 0.001), and volume (+17%, p = 0.001). (O) lead to a statistically significant improvement of volume (+15%, p = 0.009). Overall, most study participants stated (A) to be the “best of three”. Conclusions: (A) performed statistically best, and is a well-tolerated moisturizing product. However, further quantitative studies are needed to provide statistically significant clarification for uniform recommendations for scar therapy.