Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children 12-months postburn: A parallel group randomised controlled trial

Author:

Wiseman Jodie1ORCID,Simons Megan23,Kimble Roy13,Ware Robert S4,McPhail Steven M56,Tyack Zephanie15ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Children’s Burns and Trauma Research, Child Health Research Centre, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

2. Department of Occupational Therapy, Queensland Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

3. Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burns Centre, Queensland Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

4. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia

5. Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia

6. Clinical Informatics Directorate, Metro South Health, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia

Abstract

Objective: The longer-term effectiveness of silicone and pressure burn scar interventions was evaluated at 12-months postburn. Design: Parallel group, randomised trial. Setting: Hospital outpatient clinics, research centre. Participants: Children referred for burn scar management following grafted or spontaneously healed acute burn injuries or scar reconstruction surgery. Interventions: Participants were randomised to: (1) topical silicone gel only, (2) pressure garment only, or (3) combined topical silicone gel and pressure garment. Main measures: Primary outcomes were scar thickness (blinded ultrasound measurement) and itch intensity (caregiver proxy-report, numeric rating scale). Results: Of 153 participants randomised who received the interventions (silicone n = 51, pressure garment n = 49, combined n = 53), 86 were followed-up at 12-months postburn ( n = 34, n = 28, n = 24). No differences were identified for the primary outcomes using intention-to-treat analysis. Scar thickness mean difference (95% confidence interval) = 0.00 cm (−0.04, 0.05); −0.03 cm (−0.07, 0.02); 0.03 cm (−0.02, 0.08) and scar itch = 0.09 (−0.88, 1.06); −0.21 (−1.21, 0.79); 0.30 (−0.73, 1.32) for silicone vs pressure; silicone vs combined and combined vs pressure respectively. No serious adverse effects occurred. Conclusion: Similar to short-term results, the combined intervention offered no statistically or clinically significant benefit for improving the primary outcomes compared to each intervention alone. No differences in the primary outcomes were identified between the silicone and pressure alone groups.

Funder

Children’s Hospital Foundation, Brisbane

Stratpharma who provided a grant to The University of Queensland

Australian Government Research Training Scholarship, The University of Queensland

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Rehabilitation,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3