Partial-thickness scalds in children: A comparison of different treatment strategies

- Treatment results of two centers in paediatric scalds were remarkably different.
- One center applied cerium-nitrate silver sulfadiazine (CN-SSD), one either hydrofiber or SSD.
- Patients with CN-SSD had shortest time to wound healing (HR = 1.46,95%CI 1.17-1.82).
- Patients with hydrofiber had a shorter LOS (median 3 vs. 10 (SSD) or 7(CN-SSD)).
- A prospective study is needed to gain full insight in merits of treatment strategies.

AimThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of different treatment strategies for children with partial-thickness scalds at two burn centers. At the first burn center, these burns were treated with a hydrofiber dressing (Aquacel®, Convatec, Inc.®, Princeton, NJ, USA) or silver sulfadiazine (SSD, Flammazine®, Sinclair IS Pharma, London, UK Pharmaceuticals), while at the second burn center, cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine (CN-SSD, Flammacerium®, Sinclair IS Pharma, London, UK Pharmaceuticals) was used.MethodsA two-center retrospective study was conducted of children admitted between January 2009 and December 2013 for partial-thickness scalds up to 10% TBSA who were treated primarily with a hydrofiber dressing or silver sulfadiazine (Burn Center Rotterdam) vs. cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine (Burn Center Groningen). The Dutch Burn Repository R3 and the electronic medical records of the study population were used for data extraction. The primary outcome was the time to wound healing. The secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, wound infection, and surgical treatment.ResultsThe time to wound healing differed between the groups (HR = 1.46, 95%CI 1.17-1.82); the shortest time to wound healing was observed in the patients treated with CN-SSD (median 13 days), compared with 15 days for the patients treated with hydrofiber and 16 days for the patients treated with SSD (p < 0.01). The length of stay was significantly shorter for the hydrofiber patients (medians: hydrofiber 3 days, SSD 10 days and CN-SSD 7 days; p < 0.01), but their outpatient treatment period was significantly longer (medians: hydrofiber 12 days, SSD 6 and CN-SSD 4 days; p < 0.01). The proportion of surgeries and the mean time to surgery was similar between the burn centers.ConclusionsThis study compared different burn centers' treatment strategies for children with partial-thickness scalds and found a shorter time to wound healing in the CN-SSD group. Patients treated with hydrofiber had a shorter clinical period in comparison with the SSD and CN-SSD patients. The results of CN-SSD are promising and warrant further study. A prospective study is needed to gain full insight into the merits and drawbacks of the treatment strategies. This will allow clinicians to make full use of the strengths of particular treatments to benefit specific patients.