-
Cureus Mar 2023Wound healing poses a variety of challenges making it a vital subject in medicine. With the advancement of science, we have seen the use of a new xenograft known as... (Review)
Review
Wound healing poses a variety of challenges making it a vital subject in medicine. With the advancement of science, we have seen the use of a new xenograft known as acellular fish skin (AFS) grafts that are derived from either Atlantic cod or Nile Tilapia. Fish skin has shown anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial properties that support and improve wound healing in a variety of wounds including burns and diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). There is ongoing research that evaluates the efficacy of fish skin grafts in comparison to alternative wound healing techniques. A literature search was conducted through the National Library of Medicine with search terms fish skin graft, AFS, xenograft, dehydrated human amnion/chorion, ulcer, burns, and wounds. A total of ten studies that investigate the efficacy of fish skin grafts either in comparison to a different wound healing technique or by simply observing wound healing with fish skin grafts and recording the results were chosen. AFS showed superior healing in comparison to collagen alginate dressings, silver sulfadiazine cream 1%, and allografts. Although there is no one specific gold standard technique for wound healing, fish skin grafts demonstrated overall improved and quicker wound healing, fewer dressing changes, less pain, and lower costs.
PubMed: 37082504
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.36348 -
Cureus Oct 2022Burn wounds remain a prevalent problem in the developed and developing world. A multitude of remedies has been tested. This study evaluated the healing time of second-... (Review)
Review
Burn wounds remain a prevalent problem in the developed and developing world. A multitude of remedies has been tested. This study evaluated the healing time of second- and third-degree burn wounds between silver sulfadiazine (SSD) and (AV). In July 2020, a systematic review of MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed (National Library of Medicine) was performed to identify studies that reported healing of second- and third-degree burns using either SSD or AV. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were screened and carefully analyzed. Our goal was to report the healing time for these burns using SSD and AV. A total of eight studies published between 1988 and 2018 reporting healing of second- and third-degree burns using SSD and AV were included in this review. Six were cohort studies and two were randomized controlled trials. The studies included both animal and human subjects. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the mean time to wound healing favored AV (RR: -1.34, 95% CI: -1.8 to 0.9, p < 0.001). It would seem that time to healing benefitted those burns in which AV was utilized. In conclusion, increased consideration and emphasis should be placed on using AV to aid the healing of second- and third-degree burns.
PubMed: 36337821
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30815 -
Arab Journal of Urology Mar 2021: To systematically review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in urology. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
: To systematically review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in urology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane Library online databases were searched in February 2019. Experimental and clinical studies, which included the placement of a DES or dilatation with DCB for investigating their potential use in the urinary tract for the management of ureteric or urethral pathologies, were included. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the current use of DES and DCB in urology.
RESULTS
A total of 29 articles were included in the systematic review. A total of 10 studies tested DES or DCB containing anti-proliferative agents (paclitaxel, zotarolimus, sirolimus, halofugione). Antibiotic agent-containing DES were tested in nine studies (triclosan, quinolones, teicoplanin, nitrofurantoin, silver sulfadiazine). A total of eight studies investigated the release of anti-inflammatory agents by DES (ketorolac, indomethacin, EW-7197). Another group studied heparin-eluting stents.
CONCLUSION
Despite the inconclusive outcomes of the three randomised controlled trials, drug-coated/eluting devices constitute a promising field in urology for the prevention of complications associated with conventional stents including pain and encrustation. Pre-clinical and studies have shown their ability to mitigate inflammation, inhibit re-stenosis and improve pain as indicated by declined use of anti-inflammatory drugs.: DES: drug-eluting stents; DCB: drug-coated balloons; DCS: drug-coated stents; HF: halofungione; MCP-1: monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RANTES: regulated on activation, normal T-cell expressed and secreted; RCT: randomised controlled trial; USSQ, Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionaire.
PubMed: 34104496
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.1885948 -
Parasite Epidemiology and Control Nov 2020The preferred treatment for management of toxoplasmosis is the combined use of pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine. However, there are a wide number of adverse side effects... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The preferred treatment for management of toxoplasmosis is the combined use of pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine. However, there are a wide number of adverse side effects with these medications. Recent research has focused on the use of chitosan for the treatment of infections. This review was performed to obtain a better understanding of the and effects of chitosan on strains.
METHODS
The current study was carried out according to the PRISMA guideline and registered in the CAMARADES-NC3Rs Preclinical Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Facility (SyRF) database. The search was performed in five scientific databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, with date limits of 1992 to December 2019. The search was restricted to articles published in the English language. The words and terms searched were "", "Chitosan", "nanoparticles" and "anti-toxoplasmosis" with AND or OR.
RESULTS
Of 2500 manuscripts, 9 met the eligibility criteria for review. All studies used the RH strain of , with Me49 and PRU each included in one study. Five studies (56%) were performed , one study and 3 studies included and tests.
CONCLUSION
Considering the low toxicity and the high inhibitory potency of chitosan against , chitosan nanoparticles show potential as an alternative treatment for .
PubMed: 33163635
DOI: 10.1016/j.parepi.2020.e00189 -
Systematic Reviews Jul 2021Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, which leads to visual impairment in a large proportion of patients. Antibiotics and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, which leads to visual impairment in a large proportion of patients. Antibiotics and corticosteroids lower the risk of permanent visual loss by controlling infection and inflammation. However, there remains disagreement regarding optimal antibiotic therapy for OT. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the effects and safety of existing antibiotic treatment regimens for OT.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Gray Literature in Europe ("OpenGrey") were searched for relevant studies; manual searches of reference lists were performed for studies identified by other methods. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared antibiotic schemes known to be effective in OT at any dosage, duration, and administration route were included. Studies comparing antibiotics with placebo were excluded. This review followed standard methodological procedures recommended by the Cochrane group.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the narrative summary, of which four were included for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Interventions were organized into three groups: intravitreal clindamycin versus pyrimethamine + sulfadiazine, trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole versus other antibiotics, and other interventions. The first comparison favored intravitreal clindamycin (Mean difference (MD) = 0.10 logMAR; 95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.22). However, this finding lacks clinical relevance. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. In general, the risk of performance bias was high in evaluated studies, and the quality of the evidence found was low to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
No antibiotic scheme was superior to others, and the selection of a treatment regimen depends on multiple factors; therefore, treatment should be chosen based on safety, sulfa allergies, and availability.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clindamycin; Europe; Humans; Toxoplasmosis, Ocular
PubMed: 34275483
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01758-7 -
Strategies in Trauma and Limb... 2022Circular frame fixation remains a key tool in the armamentarium of the limb reconstruction surgeon. One of the key drawbacks is the onset of pin-site infection (PSI). As... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Circular frame fixation remains a key tool in the armamentarium of the limb reconstruction surgeon. One of the key drawbacks is the onset of pin-site infection (PSI). As a result of limited evidence and consensus of PSI prevention, a wide variation in practice remains.
AIM
The principal aim of this review is to synthesise primary research concerning all aspects of treatment regarded as relevant to PSI in frame constructs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Comparative studies until week 26, 2021, were included in the trial. Studies were included that concerned patients undergoing management of a musculoskeletal condition in which pin-site care is necessary for over 4 weeks.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies over a 13-year period were captured using the search strategy. Sulphadiazine and hydrogen peroxide cleansing was found to reduce PSI, with the use of low-energy fine wires and hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated pins also associated with lower infection rate. The remainder of studies found no significant improvement across interventions.
CONCLUSION
There is no superiority between weekly and daily care. Low-energy pin-insertion technique had lower rates of infection. Sulphadiazine has positive results as a pin-care solution, but more research is necessary to determine the most effective care regime. Current literature is limited by absence of established definitions and by a lack of studies addressing all aspects of care relevant to PSI.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
Shields DW, Iliadis AD, Kelly E, . Pin-site Infection: A Systematic Review of Prevention Strategies. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2022;17(2):93-104.
PubMed: 35990183
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1562 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Feb 2023Toxoplasmic encephalitis (TE) is an opportunistic infection of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other causes of immunosuppression. Guideline-recommended... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Toxoplasmic encephalitis (TE) is an opportunistic infection of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other causes of immunosuppression. Guideline-recommended treatments for TE are pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine (P-S) or pyrimethamine and clindamycin (P-C); however, a substantial price increase has limited access to pyrimethamine. Consequently, some centers have transitioned to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), an inexpensive alternative treatment. We aimed to review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of pyrimethamine-containing therapies vs TMP-SMX.
METHODS
We searched for and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of TE treatments, regardless of HIV status. Data for each therapy were pooled by meta-analysis to assess the proportions of patients who experienced clinical and radiologic responses to treatment, all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to toxicity. Sensitivity analyses limited to RCTs directly compared therapies.
RESULTS
We identified 6 RCTs/dose-escalation studies and 26 single-arm/observational studies. Identified studies included only persons with HIV, and most predated modern antiretroviral treatment. Pooled proportions of clinical and radiologic response and mortality were not significantly different between TMP-SMX and pyrimethamine-containing regimens (P > .05). Treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was significantly lower in TMP-SMX (7.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-11.4; I2 = 0.0%) vs P-S (30.5%; 95% CI, 27.1-34.2; I2 = 0.0%; P < .01) or P-C (13.7%; 95% CI, 9.8-18.8; I2 = 32.0%; P = .031). These results were consistent in analyses restricted to RCT data.
CONCLUSIONS
TMP-SMX appears to be as effective and safer than pyrimethamine-containing regimens for TE. These findings support modern RCTs comparing TMP-SMX to pyrimethamine-based therapies and a revisiting of the guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Pyrimethamine; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Toxoplasmosis, Cerebral; HIV Infections; Encephalitis
PubMed: 35944134
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac645 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2022Paediatric second-degree burn injuries are a significant source of medical challenges to the population that may cause severe, lifelong complications. Currently, there... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Paediatric second-degree burn injuries are a significant source of medical challenges to the population that may cause severe, lifelong complications. Currently, there are dozens of therapeutic modalities and we aimed to summarise their reported outcomes and determine their effectiveness, compared to the widely used silver sulphadiazine (SSD).
METHODS
We conducted the meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which investigated the performance of dressings in acute paediatric partial-thickness burns. The evaluated endpoints were time until wound closure, grafting and infection rate, number of dressing changes and length of hospitalisation.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine RCTs were included in the qualitative and 25 in the quantitative synthesis, but only three trials compared SSD directly to the same intervention (Biobrane). Data analysis showed a tendency for faster healing times and a reduced complication rate linked to biosynthetic, silver foam and amnion membrane dressings. A substantial difference was found between the number of dressing changes associated with less pain, narcosis and treatment duration.
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable between-study heterogeneity was caused by the unequal depth subcategory ratio and surface area of the injuries; therefore, no significant difference was found in the main outcomes. Further research is necessary to establish the most effective treatment for these burns.
PubMed: 35629287
DOI: 10.3390/life12050619 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Apr 2021Burns cause a huge economic burden to society, and the wounds can be very difficult to manage. Clinical experience suggests that amniotic membrane (AM) is an economical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Burns cause a huge economic burden to society, and the wounds can be very difficult to manage. Clinical experience suggests that amniotic membrane (AM) is an economical and effective biological dressing for burns. However, few systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been published on such use. We aimed to evaluate the role of AM dressings in burn wounds.
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted in March 2020. The search was conducted to identify randomized control trials that compared selected features of AM with those of other dressings, such as silver sulfadiazine, polyurethane membrane, and honey. For skin-grafted wounds, we compared AM-covered skin grafts and traditional staple-fixed skin grafts. Outcomes of interest for the efficacy analysis included wound infection, pain, itching, scarring, and healing time. The number of adverse events in each treatment group, the rate of withdrawal because of adverse effects, the cost of treatment, and patient acceptability were assessed for the feasibility analysis.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trials with 816 participants total were identified in our review. Amniotic membrane treatment was more effective than conventional methods, silver sulfadiazine, and polyurethane membrane in treating burn wounds, but AM appears to be less effective than honey. No reports of AM-related disease transmission or adverse reactions were described in the included articles.
CONCLUSION
Amniotic membrane has beneficial effects in treating burn wounds; however, the evidence needs to be strengthened by further robust randomized controlled trials.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review/Meta-analysis, level III.
Topics: Amnion; Biological Dressings; Burns; Humans
PubMed: 33284236
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003050 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our...
BACKGROUND
Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our most expressive means of communication. Topical interventions are currently the cornerstone of treatment of burns to the face.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
In this first update, we included 12 RCTs, comprising 507 participants. Most trials included adults admitted to specialised burn centres after recent burn injuries. Topical agents included antimicrobial agents (silver sulphadiazine (SSD), Aquacel-Ag, cerium-sulphadiazine, gentamicin cream, mafenide acetate cream, bacitracin), non-antimicrobial agents (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO), saline-soaked dressings, skin substitutes (including bioengineered skin substitute (TransCyte), allograft, and xenograft (porcine Xenoderm), and miscellaneous treatments (growth hormone therapy, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor hydrogel (rhGMCS)), enzymatic debridement, and cream with Helix Aspersa extract). Almost all the evidence included in this review was assessed as low or very low-certainty, often because of high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation procedures (i.e. sequence generation and allocation concealment); lack of blinding of participants, providers and sometimes outcome assessors; and imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates or both, often in single studies. Topical antimicrobial agents versus topical non-antimicrobial agents There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between antimicrobial agents and non-antimicrobial agents (SSD and MEBO) in time to complete wound healing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.85, 1 study, 39 participants). Topical antimicrobial agents may make little or no difference to the proportion of wounds completely healed compared with topical non-antimicrobial agents (comparison SSD and MEBO, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29; 1 study, 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel-Ag) and MEBO; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21; 1 study, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing. There is low-certainty evidence for the secondary outcomes scar quality and patient satisfaction. Two studies assessed pain but it was incompletely reported. Topical antimicrobial agents versus other topical antimicrobial agents It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low-certainty. For primary outcomes, there is low-certainty evidence for time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing (comparison SSD versus cerium SSD: mean difference (MD) -7.10 days, 95% CI -16.43 to 2.23; 1 study, 142 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence regarding whether topical antimicrobial agents make a difference to wound infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; 1 study, 15 participants). There is low to very low-certainty evidence for the proportion of facial burns requiring surgery, pain, scar quality, adverse effects and length of hospital stay. Skin substitutes versus topical antimicrobial agents There is low-certainty evidence that a skin substitute may slightly reduce time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing, compared with a non-specified antibacterial agent (MD -6.00 days, 95% CI -8.69 to -3.31; 1 study, 34 participants). We are uncertain whether skin substitutes in general make any other difference in effects as the evidence is very low certainty. Outcomes included wound infection, pain, scar quality, adverse effects of treatment and length of hospital stay. Single studies showed contrasting low-certainty evidence. A bioengineered skin substitute may slightly reduce procedural pain (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.95; 34 participants) and background pain (MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.95; 34 participants) compared with an unspecified antimicrobial agent. In contrast, a biological dressing (porcine Xenoderm) might slightly increase pain in superficial burns (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75; 15 participants (30 wounds)) as well as deep partial thickness burns (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.66; 10 participants (20 wounds)), compared with antimicrobial agents (Physiotulle Ag (Coloplast)). Miscellaneous treatments versus miscellaneous treatments Single studies show low to very low-certainty effects of interventions. Low-certainty evidence shows that MEBO may slightly reduce time to complete wound healing compared with saline soaked dressing (MD -1.7 days, 95% CI -3.32 to -0.08; 40 participants). In addition, a cream containing Helix Aspersa may slightly increase the proportion of wounds completely healed at 14 days compared with MEBO (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.15; 43 participants). We are uncertain whether any miscellaneous treatment in the included studies makes a difference in effects for the outcomes wound infection, scar quality, pain and patient satisfaction as the evidence is low to very low-certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is mainly low to very low-certainty evidence on the effects of any topical intervention on wound healing in people with facial burns. The number of RCTs in burn care is growing, but the body of evidence is still hampered due to an insufficient number of studies that follow appropriate evidence-based standards of conducting and reporting RCTs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Infective Agents; Bias; Burns; Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium; Facial Injuries; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin, Artificial; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32725896
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008058.pub3