Hydrogel burn dressing effectiveness in burn pain
Loading...

Date
2024
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Elsevier Sci Ltd
Open Access Color
Green Open Access
No
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Publicly Funded
No
Abstract
Severe burns are painful and dramatic injuries. Studies show that pain is underestimated and often not adequately treated. This study aims to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of hydrogel burn dressing and silver sulfadiazine, which are two agents commonly used in first-aid dressings for burn patients. This study, designed as a prospective, observational, and cross-sectional study. Study included 64 pediatric patients admitted to our burn center between 01.03.2020 and 01.09.2020 who were examined by our burn service after their first treatment in the emergency dressing room. Two groups of patients were included in the study. Pain level was assessed in the dressing room before and 10 min after the procedure using the Visual Analog Scale and FLACC (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability) pain assessment scales.During the study period, Burnaid (R) was applied to 62.5% of patients (40 patients) and silver sulfadiazine to 37.5% (24 patients). In terms of pain scores, pre-dressing FLACC values were higher in Group B (p = 0.039); post-dressing VAS and FLACC values were significantly lower in group B (p 0.001; p 0.001). In terms of additional analgesia, we found more patients in Group S received analgesics (p 0.001).We believe that its effect on burn wound pain is superior to that of silver sulfadiazine.(c) 2023 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.
Description
Celik, Enes/0000-0002-5546-4924; Akelma, Hakan/0000-0002-0387-8738
Keywords
Burns, Hydrogel Dressing, Pain Assessment, Silver Sulfadiazine, Analgesics, Pain, Hydrogels, Hydrogel dressing, Silver Sulfadiazine, Bandages, Cross-Sectional Studies, Silver sulfadiazine, Humans, Prospective Studies, Pain Assessment, Child, Burns
Fields of Science
Citation
WoS Q
Q1
Scopus Q
Q2

OpenCitations Citation Count
3
Source
Burns
Volume
50
Issue
1
Start Page
190
End Page
196
PlumX Metrics
Citations
CrossRef : 7
Scopus : 8
PubMed : 2
Captures
Mendeley Readers : 22
Google Scholar™


