A randomized comparison study of Aquacel Ag and Glucan II as donor site dressings with regard to healing time, cosmesis, infection rate, and patient's perceived pain: A pilot study

Suzanne Bailey, Melissa Carmean, Marianne Cinat, Kimberly Burton, Christopher Lane, Darren Malinoski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study was undertaken to compare pain, healing time, infection rate, and cosmetic outcome between Aquacel Ag (Convatec) and Glucan II (Brennan Medical) as donor site dressings. The authors performed a prospective, randomized, patient-controlled study. Eligible patients had two donor sites harvested. One site was dressed with Aquacel Ag and the other site with Glucan II. Patients were followed at set time points for 6 months to determine the rate of epithelialization, patient's perceived pain, infection rate, and the cosmetic outcome. A total of 20 patients were enrolled in the study. All patient data were collected through reepithelialization. The average time to wound healing for Aquacel Ag was 12.5 ± 2.07 days compared with Glucan II 12.7 ± 1.99 days. Perceived pain scores for each donor site were recorded. On postoperative day 5, patients reported significantly less pain with the Aquacel Ag site (Aquacel Ag 1.75 vs Glucan II 2.5, P = .02). Three donor sites showed clinical signs of infection (two Glucan II and one Aquacel Ag) prompting culture and dressing removal. There was no statistically significant difference in cosmetic outcomes of the donor sites at any time point. When comparing Aquacel Ag and Glucan II, our study has determined that there is no significant difference with regard to healing time, infection rates, and cosmetic outcomes. Both dressings are comparable with regard to ease of application and postoperative care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)627-632
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Burn Care and Research
Volume32
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium
Glucans
Bandages
Tissue Donors
Pain
Cosmetics
Infection
Postoperative Care
Wound Healing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Rehabilitation
  • Surgery

Cite this

A randomized comparison study of Aquacel Ag and Glucan II as donor site dressings with regard to healing time, cosmesis, infection rate, and patient's perceived pain : A pilot study. / Bailey, Suzanne; Carmean, Melissa; Cinat, Marianne; Burton, Kimberly; Lane, Christopher; Malinoski, Darren.

In: Journal of Burn Care and Research, Vol. 32, No. 6, 11.2011, p. 627-632.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{80c77bdb34fc44d0a61f53dae7d2b5fe,
title = "A randomized comparison study of Aquacel Ag and Glucan II as donor site dressings with regard to healing time, cosmesis, infection rate, and patient's perceived pain: A pilot study",
abstract = "This study was undertaken to compare pain, healing time, infection rate, and cosmetic outcome between Aquacel Ag (Convatec) and Glucan II (Brennan Medical) as donor site dressings. The authors performed a prospective, randomized, patient-controlled study. Eligible patients had two donor sites harvested. One site was dressed with Aquacel Ag and the other site with Glucan II. Patients were followed at set time points for 6 months to determine the rate of epithelialization, patient's perceived pain, infection rate, and the cosmetic outcome. A total of 20 patients were enrolled in the study. All patient data were collected through reepithelialization. The average time to wound healing for Aquacel Ag was 12.5 ± 2.07 days compared with Glucan II 12.7 ± 1.99 days. Perceived pain scores for each donor site were recorded. On postoperative day 5, patients reported significantly less pain with the Aquacel Ag site (Aquacel Ag 1.75 vs Glucan II 2.5, P = .02). Three donor sites showed clinical signs of infection (two Glucan II and one Aquacel Ag) prompting culture and dressing removal. There was no statistically significant difference in cosmetic outcomes of the donor sites at any time point. When comparing Aquacel Ag and Glucan II, our study has determined that there is no significant difference with regard to healing time, infection rates, and cosmetic outcomes. Both dressings are comparable with regard to ease of application and postoperative care.",
author = "Suzanne Bailey and Melissa Carmean and Marianne Cinat and Kimberly Burton and Christopher Lane and Darren Malinoski",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1097/BCR.0b013e31822dc409",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "627--632",
journal = "Journal of Burn Care and Research",
issn = "1559-047X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized comparison study of Aquacel Ag and Glucan II as donor site dressings with regard to healing time, cosmesis, infection rate, and patient's perceived pain

T2 - A pilot study

AU - Bailey, Suzanne

AU - Carmean, Melissa

AU - Cinat, Marianne

AU - Burton, Kimberly

AU - Lane, Christopher

AU - Malinoski, Darren

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - This study was undertaken to compare pain, healing time, infection rate, and cosmetic outcome between Aquacel Ag (Convatec) and Glucan II (Brennan Medical) as donor site dressings. The authors performed a prospective, randomized, patient-controlled study. Eligible patients had two donor sites harvested. One site was dressed with Aquacel Ag and the other site with Glucan II. Patients were followed at set time points for 6 months to determine the rate of epithelialization, patient's perceived pain, infection rate, and the cosmetic outcome. A total of 20 patients were enrolled in the study. All patient data were collected through reepithelialization. The average time to wound healing for Aquacel Ag was 12.5 ± 2.07 days compared with Glucan II 12.7 ± 1.99 days. Perceived pain scores for each donor site were recorded. On postoperative day 5, patients reported significantly less pain with the Aquacel Ag site (Aquacel Ag 1.75 vs Glucan II 2.5, P = .02). Three donor sites showed clinical signs of infection (two Glucan II and one Aquacel Ag) prompting culture and dressing removal. There was no statistically significant difference in cosmetic outcomes of the donor sites at any time point. When comparing Aquacel Ag and Glucan II, our study has determined that there is no significant difference with regard to healing time, infection rates, and cosmetic outcomes. Both dressings are comparable with regard to ease of application and postoperative care.

AB - This study was undertaken to compare pain, healing time, infection rate, and cosmetic outcome between Aquacel Ag (Convatec) and Glucan II (Brennan Medical) as donor site dressings. The authors performed a prospective, randomized, patient-controlled study. Eligible patients had two donor sites harvested. One site was dressed with Aquacel Ag and the other site with Glucan II. Patients were followed at set time points for 6 months to determine the rate of epithelialization, patient's perceived pain, infection rate, and the cosmetic outcome. A total of 20 patients were enrolled in the study. All patient data were collected through reepithelialization. The average time to wound healing for Aquacel Ag was 12.5 ± 2.07 days compared with Glucan II 12.7 ± 1.99 days. Perceived pain scores for each donor site were recorded. On postoperative day 5, patients reported significantly less pain with the Aquacel Ag site (Aquacel Ag 1.75 vs Glucan II 2.5, P = .02). Three donor sites showed clinical signs of infection (two Glucan II and one Aquacel Ag) prompting culture and dressing removal. There was no statistically significant difference in cosmetic outcomes of the donor sites at any time point. When comparing Aquacel Ag and Glucan II, our study has determined that there is no significant difference with regard to healing time, infection rates, and cosmetic outcomes. Both dressings are comparable with regard to ease of application and postoperative care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81155150097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81155150097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31822dc409

DO - 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31822dc409

M3 - Article

C2 - 21844815

AN - SCOPUS:81155150097

VL - 32

SP - 627

EP - 632

JO - Journal of Burn Care and Research

JF - Journal of Burn Care and Research

SN - 1559-047X

IS - 6

ER -