Explore the vast range of titles available.

Partial thickness burns are the most common form of thermal burns. Traditionally, dressing for these burns is simple gauze with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) changed on a daily basis. Foam dressings have been proposed to offer the advantage of requiring less frequent dressing change and better absorption of exudates. To compare the impact of silver-containing foam dressing to traditional SSD with gauze dressing on wound healing of partial thickness burns. We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library database and Google Scholar for trials comparing traditional SSD dressings to that of silver-containing foam dressing on wound healing in partial thickness burns <25% of the body surface area. We excluded studies that enrolled burns involving head, face, and genitals; burns older than or equal to 36 h, non-thermal burns, and immunocompromised patients. Quality of trials was assessed using the GRADE criteria. The main outcome, complete wound healing, is reported as percentages of wound with complete epithelialization after the follow up period. Relative risks of complete healing are also reported with respective 95% CI. Time to healing and pain score before, during, and after dressing change at each follow up visit are compared between the groups (means with standard deviation or medians with quartiles). We identified a total of 877 references, of which three randomized controlled trials (2 combined pediatric and adult trials and 1 adult trial) with a total of 346 patients met our inclusion criteria. All three trials compared silver-containing foam dressing to SSD and gauze on partial thickness burns. Moderate quality evidence indicated no significant difference in wound re-epithelialization between the groups across all three trials as confidence intervals for the relative risks all crossed 1. Although pain scores favored foam dressing at the first dressing change (7 days), there was no significant difference between the groups at the end of the treatment period at 28 days. Time to wound healing was also similar across the three trials with no statistical difference. Infection rates favored the foam-dressing group, but data were inconsistent. Moderate quality evidence indicates that there is no significant difference in wound healing between silver-containing foam dressing and SSD dressing. However, foam has the added benefit of reduced pain during the early treatment phase and potentially decreased infection rates.

The treatment of chronic wounds presents significant challenges due to the necessity of accelerating healing within complex microenvironments characterized by persistent inflammation and biochemical imbalances. Factors such as bacterial infections, hyperglycemia, and oxidative stress disrupt cellular functions and impair angiogenesis, substantially delaying wound repair. Nanozymes, which are engineered nanoscale materials with enzyme-like activities, offer distinct advantages over conventional enzymes and traditional nanomaterials, making them promising candidates for chronic wound treatment. To enhance their clinical potential, nanozyme-based catalytic systems are currently being optimized through formulation advancements and preclinical studies assessing their biocompatibility, anti-oxidant activity, antibacterial efficacy, and tissue repair capabilities, ensuring their safety and clinical applicability. When integrated into multifunctional wound dressings, nanozymes modulate reactive oxygen species levels, promote tissue regeneration, and simultaneously combat infections and oxidative damage, extending beyond conventional enzyme-like catalysis in chronic wound treatment. The customizable architectures of nanozymes enable precise therapeutic applications, enhancing their effectiveness in managing complex wound conditions. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the incorporation of nanozymes into wound dressings, detailing fabrication methods and emphasizing their transformative potential in chronic wound management. By identifying and addressing key limitations, we introduce strategic advancements to drive the development of nanozyme-driven dressings, paving the way for next-generation chronic wound treatments.

BackgroundProspective randomized controlled studies have demonstrated that addition of chlorhexidine (CHG) dressings reduces the rate of catheter (central venous and arterial)-associated bloodstream infections (CABSIs). However, studies confirming their impact in a real-world setting are lacking.MethodsWe conducted a real-world data study evaluating the impact of incrementally introducing chlorhexidine dressings (sponge or gel) in addition to an ongoing catheter bundle on the rates of CABSI, expressed as incidence density rates per 1000 catheter-days measured as part of a surveillance program. Poisson regression models were used to compare infection rates over time. Both dressings were used simultaneously during one of the five study periods.ResultsFrom 2006 to 2014, 18,286 patients were admitted (91,292 ICU-days and 155,242 catheter-days). We recorded 111 CABSIs. We observed a progressive but significant decrease of CABSI rates from 1.48 (95% CI 1.09–2.01) without CHG dressings to 0.69 (95% CI 0.43–1.09) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.11–0.48) episodes per 1000 catheter-days when CHG sponge and CHG gel dressings were used (p = 0.0007; p < 0.001). A non-significant lower rate of infections occurred with CHG gel compared with CHG sponge dressings. An identical low rate of allergic skin reactions (0.3/1000 device-days) was observed with both types of CHX dressings. Post-study data until 2018 confirmed a sustained decrease of infection rates over 11 years.ConclusionsThe addition of chlorhexidine dressings to all CVC and arterial lines to an ongoing catheter bundle was associated with a sustained 11-year reduction of all catheter-associated bloodstream infections. This large real-world data study further supports the current recommendations for the systematic use of CHG dressings on all catheters of ICU patients.

Effective exudate management is key for optimal ulcer healing. Superabsorbent dressings are designed to have high fluid handling capacity, reduced risk of exudate leakage, fluid retention under compression, and to sequester harmful exudate components. This study aimed to systematically identify existing evidence for the clinical efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of superabsorbent dressings for the treatment of moderate‐to‐highly exudating chronic ulcers of various etiologies. The aim is focused on examining the ‘class’ effect of all superabsorbers, not any particular dressing. Clinical and cost effectiveness systematic reviews were conducted, searching Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The Cost Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Econ papers were also searched for the economic review. Outcomes of interest included ulcer closure, dressing properties, hospital‐ and infection‐related outcomes, safety, and economic outcomes. Fourteen studies were included in the clinical systematic review. Eleven were case series, with one randomised controlled trial, one retrospective matched observational study, and one retrospective cohort study. The studies investigated eight superabsorbent dressings and were heterogeneous in their patient population and outcomes. Superabsorbent dressings may result in favourable outcomes, including reductions in frequency of dressing change and pain scores. As most studies were case series, drawing firm conclusions was difficult due to absence of a comparator arm. The economic systematic review identified seven studies, five of which were cost‐utility analyses. These suggested superabsorbent dressings are a more cost‐effective option for the treatment of chronic ulcers compared with standard dressings. However, the small number and low quality of studies identified in both reviews highlights the need for future research.

Laboratory evaluations are essential for determining the safety and effectiveness of wound dressings. These evaluations assist clinicians in selecting optimal products for their patients. It is crucial that laboratory tests closely mimic real clinical conditions. This review highlights the collaboration between scientists, clinicians and industry experts to improve laboratory testing methods for wound dressings. The goal is to ensure that laboratory tests are relevant to real‐world use. Key advancements include a new simulated wound fluid and a fluid handling test system that better reflects actual wound care environments. These improvements aim to support more reliable, evidence‐based decisions in clinical practice.

Non-adhering dressings are commonly used during granulation, tissue formation, and re-epithelialization. Elucidating cytotoxic effects and influence on proliferation/migration capacity of cells like fibroblasts is of interest. Dressings’ effects were investigated by comprehensive in vitro approach: (1) MTT assay measuring cell viability after direct contact, (2) ATP assay determining effects on cell proliferation, and (3) scratch wound assay featuring an in vitro wound healing model. One cotton-based dressing with vaseline (vas) was included in the study and four polyester dressings containing vas and technology-lipido-colloid matrix (TLC), carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), hydrocolloid (HC), or glycerin (gly) as additives. A polyamide dressing with vas + CMC and three silicone-based dressings (AT, CC, M) were tested. Polyester + vas + CMC did not negatively affect cell viability or proliferation but it was found that fibroblast layers appeared more irregular with decreased F-actin network structure and tubulin density possibly leading to hampered scratch closure. Silicone AT, polyester + gly and polyamide + vas + CMC caused distinct cell damage. The latter two further reduced cell viability, proliferation and scratch healing. From the overall results, it can be concluded that cotton + vas, polyester + TLC, polyester + vas + HC and the silicone dressings CC and M have the potential to prevent damage of newly formed tissue during dressing changes and positively influence wound healing.

The classification of wound care products as form‐stable dressings remains challenging due to the lack of objective and quantitative, material‐science‐based criteria. This study introduces a rheological testing framework to determine form stability of wound dressing materials. Using dynamic, oscillatory shear rheology, we evaluated the viscoelastic properties and responses of two tube‐dispensed model dressings and compared them to those of honey, a high‐viscosity liquid used in wound ointments. Measurements of the material storage modulus, loss modulus and phase angle demonstrated that both model dressings exhibit predominantly solid‐like responses, confirming their classification as form‐stable wound dressings despite being applied from a tube. The notably low phase angles of these dressings indicate structural integrity, which is essential for the mechanical protection of wounds; honey exhibited a liquid response and a high phase angle, without structural integrity. The reported laboratory method and findings support the implementation of rheological classification as a standardised, objective and quantitative approach for wound care product categorisation, independent of the packaging or application mode. Importantly, this study establishes a foundation for a material‐science‐driven classification framework, with implications for informed clinical decision‐making and reimbursement policies.

BackgroundHaemorrhage is a major cause of mortality and morbidity following both military and civilian trauma. Haemostatic dressings may offer effective haemorrhage control as part of prehospital treatment.AimTo conduct a systematic review of the clinical literature to assess the prehospital use of haemostatic dressings in controlling traumatic haemorrhage, and determine whether any haemostatic dressings are clinically superior.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched using predetermined criteria. The reference lists of all returned review articles were screened for eligible studies. Two authors independently undertook the search, performed data extraction, and risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation quality assessments. Meta-analysis could not be undertaken due to study and clinical heterogeneity.ResultsOur search yielded 470 studies, of which 17 met eligibility criteria, and included 809 patients (469 military and 340 civilian). There were 15 observational studies, 1 case report and 1 randomised controlled trial. Indications for prehospital haemostatic dressing use, wound location, mechanism of injury, and source of bleeding were variable. Seven different haemostatic dressings were reported with QuikClot Combat Gauze being the most frequently applied (420 applications). Cessation of bleeding ranged from 67% to 100%, with a median of 90.5%. Adverse events were only reported with QuikClot granules, resulting in burns. No adverse events were reported with QuikClot Combat Gauze use in three studies. Seven of the 17 studies did not report safety data. All studies were at risk of bias and assessed of ‘very low’ to ‘moderate’ quality.ConclusionsHaemostatic dressings offer effective prehospital treatment for traumatic haemorrhage. QuikClot Combat Gauze may be justified as the optimal agent due to the volume of clinical data and its safety profile, but there is a lack of high-quality clinical evidence, and randomised controlled trials are warranted.Level of evidenceSystematic review, level IV.

Background Chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated dressings may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings (sponge-dress) and gel dressings (gel-dress) have never been directly compared. We used the data collected for two randomized-controlled trials to perform a comparison between sponge-dress and gel-dress. Methods Adult critically ill patients who required short-term central venous or arterial catheter insertion were recruited. Our main analysis included only patients with CHG-impregnated dressings. The effect of gel-dress (versus sponge-dress) on major catheter-related infections (MCRI) and CRBSI was estimated using multivariate marginal Cox models. The comparative risks of dressing disruption and contact dermatitis were evaluated using logistic mix models for clustered data. An explanatory analysis compared gel-dress with standard dressings using either CHG skin disinfection or povidone iodine skin disinfection. Results A total of 3483 patients and 7941 catheters were observed in 16 intensive care units. Sponge-dress and gel-dress were utilized for 1953 and 2108 catheters, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, gel-dress showed similar risk for MCRI compared to sponge-dress (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28–2.31, p  = 0.68) and CRBSI (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.34–3.70, p  = 0.85), less dressing disruptions (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86, p  < 0.001), and more contact dermatitis (OR 3.60, 95% CI 2.51–5.15, p  < 0.01). However, gel-dress increased the risk of contact dermatitis only if CHG was used for skin antisepsis (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.38–2.71, p  < 0.01). Conclusions We described a similar infection risk for gel-dress and sponge-dress. Gel-dress showed fewer dressing disruptions. Concomitant use of CHG for skin disinfection and CHG-impregnated dressing may significantly increase contact dermatitis. Trials registration These studies were registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (numbers NCT01189682 and NCT00417235 ).