-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatments on the of healing of acute (e.g. burns, lacerations) and/or chronic (e.g. venous ulcers) wounds.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 October 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October Week 1 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 13 October 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 13 October 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 15 October 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author. All data have been subsequently checked by two more authors.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 26 eligible trials (total of 3011 participants). Three trials evaluated the effects of honey in minor acute wounds, 11 trials evaluated honey in burns, 10 trials recruited people with different chronic wounds including two in people with venous leg ulcers, two trials in people with diabetic foot ulcers and single trials in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Leishmaniasis and Fournier's gangrene. Two trials recruited a mixed population of people with acute and chronic wounds. The quality of the evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for risk of bias, imprecision and, in a few cases, inconsistency.There is high quality evidence (2 trials, n=992) that honey dressings heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -5.09 to -4.28) but it is unclear if there is a difference in rates of adverse events (very low quality evidence) or infection (low quality evidence).There is very low quality evidence (4 trials, n=332) that burns treated with honey heal more quickly than those treated with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (WMD -5.12 days, 95%CI -9.51 to -0.73) and high quality evidence from 6 trials (n=462) that there is no difference in overall risk of healing within 6 weeks for honey compared with SSD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) but a reduction in the overall risk of adverse events with honey relative to SSD. There is low quality evidence (1 trial, n=50) that early excision and grafting heals partial and full thickness burns more quickly than honey followed by grafting as necessary (WMD 13.6 days, 95%CI 9.82 to 17.38).There is low quality evidence (2 trials, different comparators, n=140) that honey heals a mixed population of acute and chronic wounds more quickly than SSD or sugar dressings.Honey healed infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptic washes followed by gauze and was associated with fewer adverse events (1 trial, n=50, moderate quality evidence, RR of healing 1.69, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.61); healed pressure ulcers more quickly than saline soaks (1 trial, n= 40, very low quality evidence, RR 1.41, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.90), and healed Fournier's gangrene more quickly than Eusol soaks (1 trial, n=30, very low quality evidence, WMD -8.00 days, 95%CI -6.08 to -9.92 days).The effects of honey relative to comparators are unclear for: venous leg ulcers (2 trials, n= 476, low quality evidence); minor acute wounds (3 trials, n=213, very low quality evidence); diabetic foot ulcers (2 trials, n=93, low quality evidence); Leishmaniasis (1 trial, n=100, low quality evidence); mixed chronic wounds (2 trials, n=150, low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds due to the heterogeneous nature of the patient populations and comparators studied and the mostly low quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze. Beyond these comparisons any evidence for differences in the effects of honey and comparators is of low or very low quality and does not form a robust basis for decision making.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Apitherapy; Burns; Honey; Humans; Leg Ulcer; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 25742878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005083.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013An acute burn wound is a complex and evolving injury. Extensive burns produce systemic consequences, in addition to local tissue damage. Treatment of partial thickness... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
An acute burn wound is a complex and evolving injury. Extensive burns produce systemic consequences, in addition to local tissue damage. Treatment of partial thickness burn wounds is directed towards promoting healing and a wide variety of dressings are currently available. Improvements in technology and advances in understanding of wound healing have driven the development of new dressings. Dressing selection should be based on their effects on healing, but ease of application and removal, dressing change requirements, cost and patient comfort should also be considered.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of burn wound dressings on superficial and partial thickness burns.
SEARCH METHODS
For this first update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 8 November 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to October Week 4 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, November 07, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2008 to 2012 Week 44); AND EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 2 November 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of burn wound dressings on the healing of superficial and partial thickness burns.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted the data independently using standardised forms. We assessed each trial for internal validity and resolved differences by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 30 RCTs are included in this review. Overall both the quality of trial reporting and trial conduct were generally poor and meta analysis was largely precluded due to study heterogeneity or poor data reporting. In the context of this poor quality evidence, silver sulphadiazine (SSD) was consistently associated with poorer healing outcomes than biosynthetic (skin substitute) dressings, silver-containing dressings and silicon-coated dressings. Burns treated with hydrogel dressings appear to heal more quickly than those treated with usual care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the effect of different dressings on the healing of superficial and partial thickness burn injuries. The studies summarised in this review evaluated a variety of interventions, comparators and clinical endpoints and all were at risk of bias. It is impossible to draw firm and confident conclusions about the effectiveness of specific dressings, however silver sulphadiazine was consistently associated with poorer healing outcomes than biosynthetic, silicon-coated and silver dressings whilst hydrogel-treated burns had better healing outcomes than those treated with usual care.
Topics: Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Burns; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicon Compounds; Silver Sulfadiazine; Skin, Artificial; Wound Healing
PubMed: 23543513
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002106.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after initial resuscitation) result from infection. Antiseptics are topical agents that act to prevent growth of micro-organisms. A wide range are used with the intention of preventing infection and promoting healing of burn wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of antiseptics for the treatment of burns in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any burn wound and assessed the use of a topical treatment with antiseptic properties.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 RCTs with 5807 randomised participants. Almost all trials had poorly reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. In many cases the primary review outcomes, wound healing and infection, were not reported, or were reported incompletely.Most trials enrolled people with recent burns, described as second-degree and less than 40% of total body surface area; most participants were adults. Antiseptic agents assessed were: silver-based, honey, Aloe Vera, iodine-based, chlorhexidine or polyhexanide (biguanides), sodium hypochlorite, merbromin, ethacridine lactate, cerium nitrate and Arnebia euchroma. Most studies compared antiseptic with a topical antibiotic, primarily silver sulfadiazine (SSD); others compared antiseptic with a non-antibacterial treatment or another antiseptic. Most evidence was assessed as low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, often in single studies. Antiseptics versus topical antibioticsCompared with the topical antibiotic, SSD, there is low certainty evidence that, on average, there is no clear difference in the hazard of healing (chance of healing over time), between silver-based antiseptics and SSD (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67; I = 0%; 3 studies; 259 participants); silver-based antiseptics may, on average, increase the number of healing events over 21 or 28 days' follow-up (RR 1.17 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37; I = 45%; 5 studies; 408 participants) and may, on average, reduce mean time to healing (difference in means -3.33 days; 95% CI -4.96 to -1.70; I = 87%; 10 studies; 979 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with honey are probably more likely to heal over time compared with topical antibiotics (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52; I = 66%; 5 studies; 140 participants).There is low certainty evidence from single trials that sodium hypochlorite may, on average, slightly reduce mean time to healing compared with SSD (difference in means -2.10 days, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.33, 10 participants (20 burns)) as may merbromin compared with zinc sulfadiazine (difference in means -3.48 days, 95% CI -6.85 to -0.11, 50 relevant participants). Other comparisons with low or very low certainty evidence did not find clear differences between groups.Most comparisons did not report data on infection. Based on the available data we cannot be certain if antiseptic treatments increase or reduce the risk of infection compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty evidence). Antiseptics versus alternative antisepticsThere may be some reduction in mean time to healing for wounds treated with povidone iodine compared with chlorhexidine (MD -2.21 days, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.08). Other evidence showed no clear differences and is of low or very low certainty. Antiseptics versus non-antibacterial comparatorsWe found high certainty evidence that treating burns with honey, on average, reduced mean times to healing in comparison with non-antibacterial treatments (difference in means -5.3 days, 95% CI -6.30 to -4.34; I = 71%; 4 studies; 1156 participants) but this comparison included some unconventional treatments such as amniotic membrane and potato peel. There is moderate certainty evidence that honey probably also increases the likelihood of wounds healing over time compared to unconventional anti-bacterial treatments (HR 2.86, 95% C 1.60 to 5.11; I = 50%; 2 studies; 154 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings probably have a slightly shorter mean time to healing than those treated with Vaseline gauze (difference in means -3.49 days, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.52; I = 0%; 2 studies, 204 participants), but low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference in numbers of healing events at 14 days between burns treated with silver xenograft or paraffin gauze (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16 1 study; 32 participants). Other comparisons represented low or very low certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether infection rates in burns treated with either silver-based antiseptics or honey differ compared with non-antimicrobial treatments (very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in infection rates between an iodine-based treatment compared with moist exposed burn ointment (moderate certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether infection rates differ for SSD plus cerium nitrate, compared with SSD alone (low certainty evidence).Mortality was low where reported. Most comparisons provided low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between many treatments. There may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus SSD compared with SSD alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I = 0%, 2 studies, 214 participants) (low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was often uncertain whether antiseptics were associated with any difference in healing, infections, or other outcomes. Where there is moderate or high certainty evidence, decision makers need to consider the applicability of the evidence from the comparison to their patients. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Apitherapy; Bacterial Infections; Bandages; Burns; Chlorhexidine; Disinfectants; Honey; Humans; Merbromin; Plant Preparations; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silver Sulfadiazine; Sodium Hypochlorite; Sulfadiazine; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28700086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011821.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017People with diabetes are at high risk for developing foot ulcers, which often become infected. These wounds, especially when infected, cause substantial morbidity. Wound... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with diabetes are at high risk for developing foot ulcers, which often become infected. These wounds, especially when infected, cause substantial morbidity. Wound treatments should aim to alleviate symptoms, promote healing, and avoid adverse outcomes, especially lower extremity amputation. Topical antimicrobial therapy has been used on diabetic foot ulcers, either as a treatment for clinically infected wounds, or to prevent infection in clinically uninfected wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of treatment with topical antimicrobial agents on: the resolution of signs and symptoms of infection; the healing of infected diabetic foot ulcers; and preventing infection and improving healing in clinically uninfected diabetic foot ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in August 2016. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. We used no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials conducted in any setting (inpatient or outpatient) that evaluated topical treatment with any type of solid or liquid (e.g., cream, gel, ointment) antimicrobial agent, including antiseptics, antibiotics, and antimicrobial dressings, in people with diabetes mellitus who were diagnosed with an ulcer or open wound of the foot, whether clinically infected or uninfected.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. Initial disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 22 trials that met our inclusion criteria with a total of over 2310 participants (one study did not report number of participants). The included studies mostly had small numbers of participants (from 4 to 317) and relatively short follow-up periods (4 to 24 weeks). At baseline, six trials included only people with ulcers that were clinically infected; one trial included people with both infected and uninfected ulcers; two trials included people with non-infected ulcers; and the remaining 13 studies did not report infection status.Included studies employed various topical antimicrobial treatments, including antimicrobial dressings (e.g. silver, iodides), super-oxidised aqueous solutions, zinc hyaluronate, silver sulphadiazine, tretinoin, pexiganan cream, and chloramine. We performed the following five comparisons based on the included studies: Antimicrobial dressings compared with non-antimicrobial dressings: Pooled data from five trials with a total of 945 participants suggest (based on the average treatment effect from a random-effects model) that more wounds may heal when treated with an antimicrobial dressing than with a non-antimicrobial dressing: risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45. These results correspond to an additional 119 healing events in the antimicrobial-dressing arm per 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 191 more). We consider this low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to risk of bias). The evidence on adverse events or other outcomes was uncertain (very low-certainty evidence, frequently downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Antimicrobial topical treatments (non dressings) compared with non-antimicrobial topical treatments (non dressings): There were four trials with a total of 132 participants in this comparison that contributed variously to the estimates of outcome data. Evidence was generally of low or very low certainty, and the 95% CIs spanned benefit and harm: proportion of wounds healed RR 2.82 (95% CI 0.56 to 14.23; 112 participants; 3 trials; very low-certainty evidence); achieving resolution of infection RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.54 to 2.51; 40 participants; 1 trial; low-certainty evidence); undergoing surgical resection RR 1.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 5.90; 40 participants; 1 trial; low-certainty evidence); and sustaining an adverse event (no events in either arm; 81 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison of different topical antimicrobial treatments: We included eight studies with a total of 250 participants, but all of the comparisons were different and no data could be appropriately pooled. Reported outcome data were limited and we are uncertain about the relative effects of antimicrobial topical agents for each of our review outcomes for this comparison, that is wound healing, resolution of infection, surgical resection, and adverse events (all very low-certainty evidence). Topical antimicrobials compared with systemic antibiotics : We included four studies with a total of 937 participants. These studies reported no wound-healing data, and the evidence was uncertain for the relative effects on resolution of infection in infected ulcers and surgical resection (very low certainty). On average, there is probably little difference in the risk of adverse events between the compared topical antimicrobial and systemic antibiotics treatments: RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; moderate-certainty evidence - downgraded once for inconsistency). Topical antimicrobial agents compared with growth factor: We included one study with 40 participants. The only review-relevant outcome reported was number of ulcers healed, and these data were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The randomised controlled trial data on the effectiveness and safety of topical antimicrobial treatments for diabetic foot ulcers is limited by the availability of relatively few, mostly small, and often poorly designed trials. Based on our systematic review and analysis of the literature, we suggest that: 1) use of an antimicrobial dressing instead of a non-antimicrobial dressing may increase the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed over a medium-term follow-up period (low-certainty evidence); and 2) there is probably little difference in the risk of adverse events related to treatment between systemic antibiotics and topical antimicrobial treatments based on the available studies (moderate-certainty evidence). For each of the other outcomes we examined there were either no reported data or the available data left us uncertain as to whether or not there were any differences between the compared treatments. Given the high, and increasing, frequency of diabetic foot wounds, we encourage investigators to undertake properly designed randomised controlled trials in this area to evaluate the effects of topical antimicrobial treatments for both the prevention and the treatment of infection in these wounds and ultimately the effects on wound healing.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Diabetic Foot; Foot Ulcer; Humans; Incidence; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28613416
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011038.pub2 -
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 -
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2009Superficial burns that affect the epidermis and upper dermis only are characterised by redness of the skin that blanches on pressure, pain, and hypersensitivity. The... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Superficial burns that affect the epidermis and upper dermis only are characterised by redness of the skin that blanches on pressure, pain, and hypersensitivity. The skin blisters within hours and usually heals with minimal scarring within 2 to 3 weeks if no infection is present. Most minor burns occur in the home, with less than 5% requiring hospital treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for minor thermal burns? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found eight systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alginate dressing; antibiotics; chlorhexidine-impregnated paraffin gauze dressing; foam dressing; hydrocolloid dressing; hydrogel dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; polyurethane film; silicone-coated nylon dressing; and silver sulfadiazine cream.
Topics: Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Burns; Humans; Hydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate; Incidence; Silver Sulfadiazine; Sulfadiazine; Wound Healing
PubMed: 21718576
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
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 -
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2019This study aims to evaluate tissue healing efficacy in burn patients treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine versus other treatments. This is a systematic literature review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Tissue healing efficacy in burn patients treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine versus other treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
This study aims to evaluate tissue healing efficacy in burn patients treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine versus other treatments. This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) and PICO strategy, registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD42017081057. The review found 71 studies in MEDLINE/Pubmed, 1 in Clinical Trials, 19 in the Cochrane Library, and 4 in LILACS in five manual searches. Of these, 81 studies were pre-selected. After independent analysis by two reviewers, only 11 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. All studies (n = 11) using alternative treatments to silver sulfadiazine were shown to be superior in the mean time for complete wound healing, with statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups (p <0.00001); mean difference (- 4.26), 95% CI [- 5.96, - 2.56].
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Burns; Hospitalization; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silver Sulfadiazine; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31090826
DOI: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20198321