Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting

Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Jennifer Lynn Schiefer [verfasserIn] Janine Andreae [verfasserIn] Paul Christian Fuchs [verfasserIn] Rolf Lefering [verfasserIn] Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger [verfasserIn] Alexandra Schulz [verfasserIn] Mahsa Bagheri [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	superficial burns silk Suprathel Dressilk wound healing

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Clinical Medicine - MDPI AG, 2013, 11(2022), 10, p 2857
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:11 ; year:2022 ; number:10, p 2857

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/jcm11102857

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ043740332

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ043740332
003	DE-627
005	20240414220947.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/jcm11102857 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ043740332
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Jennifer Lynn Schiefer \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns.
650		4	\|a superficial burns
650		4	\|a silk
650		4	\|a Suprathel
650		4	\|a Dressilk
650		4	\|a wound healing
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
700	0		\|a Janine Andreae \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Paul Christian Fuchs \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Rolf Lefering \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alexandra Schulz \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Mahsa Bagheri \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Clinical Medicine \|d MDPI AG, 2013 \|g 11(2022), 10, p 2857 \|w (DE-627)718632478 \|w (DE-600)2662592-1 \|x 20770383 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:11 \|g year:2022 \|g number:10, p 2857
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 11 \|j 2022 \|e 10, p 2857

Indexfelder

author_variant	j l s jls j a ja p c f pcf r l rl p i h pih a s as m b mb
matchkey_str	article:20770383:2022----::vlainfcrultatrramnospriilunwtdeslspuadurtespui
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.3390/jcm11102857 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043740332 (DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jennifer Lynn Schiefer verfasserin aut Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns. superficial burns silk Suprathel Dressilk wound healing Medicine R Janine Andreae verfasserin aut Paul Christian Fuchs verfasserin aut Rolf Lefering verfasserin aut Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger verfasserin aut Alexandra Schulz verfasserin aut Mahsa Bagheri verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 10, p 2857 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:10, p 2857 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 10, p 2857
spelling	10.3390/jcm11102857 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043740332 (DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jennifer Lynn Schiefer verfasserin aut Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns. superficial burns silk Suprathel Dressilk wound healing Medicine R Janine Andreae verfasserin aut Paul Christian Fuchs verfasserin aut Rolf Lefering verfasserin aut Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger verfasserin aut Alexandra Schulz verfasserin aut Mahsa Bagheri verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 10, p 2857 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:10, p 2857 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 10, p 2857
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/jcm11102857 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043740332 (DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jennifer Lynn Schiefer verfasserin aut Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns. superficial burns silk Suprathel Dressilk wound healing Medicine R Janine Andreae verfasserin aut Paul Christian Fuchs verfasserin aut Rolf Lefering verfasserin aut Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger verfasserin aut Alexandra Schulz verfasserin aut Mahsa Bagheri verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 10, p 2857 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:10, p 2857 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 10, p 2857
allfieldsGer	10.3390/jcm11102857 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043740332 (DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jennifer Lynn Schiefer verfasserin aut Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns. superficial burns silk Suprathel Dressilk wound healing Medicine R Janine Andreae verfasserin aut Paul Christian Fuchs verfasserin aut Rolf Lefering verfasserin aut Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger verfasserin aut Alexandra Schulz verfasserin aut Mahsa Bagheri verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 10, p 2857 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:10, p 2857 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 10, p 2857
allfieldsSound	10.3390/jcm11102857 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043740332 (DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jennifer Lynn Schiefer verfasserin aut Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns. superficial burns silk Suprathel Dressilk wound healing Medicine R Janine Andreae verfasserin aut Paul Christian Fuchs verfasserin aut Rolf Lefering verfasserin aut Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger verfasserin aut Alexandra Schulz verfasserin aut Mahsa Bagheri verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 10, p 2857 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:10, p 2857 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 10, p 2857
language	English
source	In Journal of Clinical Medicine 11(2022), 10, p 2857 volume:11 year:2022 number:10, p 2857
sourceStr	In Journal of Clinical Medicine 11(2022), 10, p 2857 volume:11 year:2022 number:10, p 2857
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	superficial burns silk Suprathel Dressilk wound healing Medicine R
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Jennifer Lynn Schiefer @@aut@@ Janine Andreae @@aut@@ Paul Christian Fuchs @@aut@@ Rolf Lefering @@aut@@ Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger @@aut@@ Alexandra Schulz @@aut@@ Mahsa Bagheri @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	718632478
id	DOAJ043740332
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ043740332</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414220947.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/jcm11102857</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ043740332</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jennifer Lynn Schiefer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">superficial burns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">silk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Suprathel</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dressilk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">wound healing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Janine Andreae</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Christian Fuchs</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rolf Lefering</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alexandra Schulz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mahsa Bagheri</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Clinical Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2022), 10, p 2857</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718632478</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2662592-1</subfield><subfield code="x">20770383</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:10, p 2857</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">10, p 2857</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Jennifer Lynn Schiefer
spellingShingle	Jennifer Lynn Schiefer misc superficial burns misc silk misc Suprathel misc Dressilk misc wound healing misc Medicine misc R Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting
authorStr	Jennifer Lynn Schiefer
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)718632478
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20770383
topic_title	Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting superficial burns silk Suprathel Dressilk wound healing
topic	misc superficial burns misc silk misc Suprathel misc Dressilk misc wound healing misc Medicine misc R
topic_unstemmed	misc superficial burns misc silk misc Suprathel misc Dressilk misc wound healing misc Medicine misc R
topic_browse	misc superficial burns misc silk misc Suprathel misc Dressilk misc wound healing misc Medicine misc R
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
hierarchy_parent_id	718632478
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1
title	Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ043740332 (DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7
title_full	Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting
author_sort	Jennifer Lynn Schiefer
journal	Journal of Clinical Medicine
journalStr	Journal of Clinical Medicine
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Jennifer Lynn Schiefer Janine Andreae Paul Christian Fuchs Rolf Lefering Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger Alexandra Schulz Mahsa Bagheri
container_volume	11
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Jennifer Lynn Schiefer
doi_str_mv	10.3390/jcm11102857
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	evaluation of scar quality after treatment of superficial burns with dressilk<sup<®</sup< and suprathel<sup<®</sup<—in an intraindividual clinical setting
title_auth	Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting
abstract	Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns.
abstractGer	Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns.
abstract_unstemmed	Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	10, p 2857
title_short	Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857 https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7 https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857 https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383
remote_bool	true
author2	Janine Andreae Paul Christian Fuchs Rolf Lefering Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger Alexandra Schulz Mahsa Bagheri
author2Str	Janine Andreae Paul Christian Fuchs Rolf Lefering Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger Alexandra Schulz Mahsa Bagheri
ppnlink	718632478
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/jcm11102857
up_date	2024-07-03T19:14:01.574Z
_version_	1803586415179595776
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ043740332</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414220947.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/jcm11102857</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ043740332</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jennifer Lynn Schiefer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk<sup<®</sup<, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk<sup<®</sup< with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel<sup<®</sup< in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel<sup<®</sup< and Dressilk<sup<®</sup<. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer<sup<®</sup<, Mexameter<sup<®</sup<, Tewameter<sup<®</sup<, and the O2C<sup<®</sup<. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel<sup<®</sup< (<i<p</i< = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk<sup<®</sup< remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel<sup<®</sup< for the treatment of superficial burns.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">superficial burns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">silk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Suprathel</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dressilk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">wound healing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Janine Andreae</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Christian Fuchs</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rolf Lefering</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alexandra Schulz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mahsa Bagheri</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Clinical Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2022), 10, p 2857</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718632478</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2662592-1</subfield><subfield code="x">20770383</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:10, p 2857</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102857</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1554ad89fb4740aea5b7da7759c476a7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/10/2857</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">10, p 2857</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398527

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk<sup<®</sup< and Suprathel<sup<®</sup<—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?