A comparison of Biobrane vs. homograft for coverage of contaminated burn wounds

An evaluation was made comparing homograft to Biobrane for the coverage of excised burn wounds using a rat model which had been contaminated with 1 × 10 5 Pseudomonas aeruginosa 1244. The homograft and Biobrane were then covered with either silver sulphadiazine cream, a 5 per cent mafenide acetate s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBurns Vol. 14; no. 5; pp. 409 - 412
Main Authors Gonce, Sara, Miskell, P., Waymack, J.P.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.10.1988
Elsevier Science
Subjects
Animals
Biocompatible Materials - therapeutic use
Biological and medical sciences
Burns
Burns - complications
Burns - therapy
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
Medical sciences
Occlusive Dressings
Pseudomonas Infections - complications
Pseudomonas Infections - therapy
Rats
Rats, Inbred ACI
Rats, Inbred Lew
Transplantation, Homologous
Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents
Burn
Homograft
Skin disease
Surgery
Comparative study
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:An evaluation was made comparing homograft to Biobrane for the coverage of excised burn wounds using a rat model which had been contaminated with 1 × 10 5 Pseudomonas aeruginosa 1244. The homograft and Biobrane were then covered with either silver sulphadiazine cream, a 5 per cent mafenide acetate solution, or no topical antibacterial agent. Five days later the wounds were examined to determine the percentage of graft take. The homograft was found to have a superior graft take in this model. It is therefore recommended that a surgeon using Biobrane for the first time ensures the wound is at least as free of bacterial contamination as he would if he were using homograft.
ISSN:0305-4179
1879-1409
DOI:10.1016/0305-4179(88)90013-7