Suprathel Versus Xeroform for the Management of Skin Graft Donor Sites
NCT ID: NCT04014400
Last Updated: 2020-10-22
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
TERMINATED
NA
10 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-07-07
2020-07-23
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Suprathel® Use During Prolonged Field Care to Promote Healing and Reduce the Need for Grafting of Burn Wounds
NCT05462860
Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of DERMASEAL for the Treatment of Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Site Wounds
NCT06134843
Altrazeal™ Versus Aquacel® Ag for Partial Thickness Skin Donor Sites
NCT01062204
Evaluation of ACell Hydrated Wound Dressing for Autogenous Skin Donor Sites
NCT00352729
Trial of exSALT SD7™ Compared to Xeroform® Petrolatum Dressing for the Management of Partial Thickness Donor Sites
NCT00968994
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
At Children's Hospital Colorado, the standard of care is to use Xeroform to dress split thickness skin grafts and donor sites. Xeroform is an inexpensive, bacteriostatic, non-adherent petroleum gauze dressing that is supplied in strips, sheets and rolls. It is used to protect freshly skin grafted areas and donor sites, it is then covered with gauze followed by BandNet. When Xeroform is applied to a split thickness donor site, it adheres to the open wound bed, where it is allowed to dry out. As the donor site heals, the Xeroform begins to separate from the wound bed, until the Xeroform eventually sloughs off.
Suprathel is a biosynthetic dressing developed by PolyMedics Innovations in Germany. Potential advantages to the use of Suprathel include its water solubility, elongation capacity, and porosity, which prevents fluid accumulation at the burn site. In a prior study, Suprathel was associated with favorable burn scar formation (improved Vancouver Scar Scale Scores) and decreased pain with dressing changes. In another study, adolescent and adult burn patients dressed in Suprathel reported significantly less pain than those who were dressed in Mepilex dressings. In post-treatment surveys, patients preferred the use of Suprathel when compared to Mepitel. In a study that compared Suprathel to other standard burn dressings, there was no statistical difference in wound healing, scar formation, and epithelization. Given the limitations in sample size and scarce pediatric data in prior studies, further research is necessary to determine the efficacy of Suprathel in the pediatric population and whether this is a dressing material that should be offered to hospital patients.
New outpatients and inpatients who meet study inclusion criteria and require split-thickness skin grafting, will be randomized into the Suprathel group or the control group on the day of surgery. The investigators will use even calendar operative days for Suprathel and odd calendar operative days for Xeroform. Parental consent and/or patient assent will be obtained prior to the operative procedure.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Suprathel
Once hemostasis is obtained, the Suprathel material will be handled with a new pair of sterile gloves. It will be cut so that the material extends 1-2 cm beyond the donor site margins, then applied to the donor site. The Suprathel will be secured with a protective layer of Rylon extending 1-2 cms beyond the margins of the Suprathel. The primary dressing will be covered with cotton gauze (4x4 fluff gauze pads) and wrapped with rolled gauze). The outer dressing will be changed 7-10 days post-op. The Suprathel and Rylon will remain in place until they can be easily peeled off. To facilitate the pain-free and easy removal of the primary Suprathel dressing, practioners will apply Vaseline or lotion to saturate and loosen the material. The patients will be followed on average about once per week in an outpatient clinic until the Suprathel (and Rylon) are removed, but they may continue to be seen until the STSG is fully healed.
Suprathel or Xeroform donor site application
The surgical procedure for recovery of a skin graft will be the same for all patients as follows. Once the patient is taken to the operating room, the selected donor site will be prepared and harvested with a Zimmer Dermatome set at 0.007 to 0.009 thousands of an inch for pediatric patients and 0.12 to 0.14 thousands for adult patients. After the harvesting procedure, the donor site will be covered with Telfa saturated with 1:10,000 epinephrine in normal saline until hemostasis is achieved. The Telfa will be irrigated off the donor site with the epinephrine saline solution. The surgeon will don a new pair of sterile gloves to handle the donor site dressing. The randomized dressing will be applied over the hemostatic donor site with an approximate 1-2cm border. Next, the wound will be dressed with 4x4 cotton gauze pads (fluffs), rolled gauze (Kerlix) and either Coban or BandNet.
Xeroform
After hemostasis occurs, the Xeroform dressing will be handled with a new pair of sterile gloves and cut so that the material extends 1-2 cm beyond the donor site margins, then applied to the donor site. The primary dressing will be covered with cotton gauze (4x4 fluff gauze pads) and wrapped with rolled gauze (Kerlix). The outer dressing will be changed 7-10 days post-op. The Xeroform will remain in place until it can be easily peeled off. To facilitate the pain-free and easy removal of the Xeroform dressing, practioners may apply Vaseline or lotion to saturate and loosen the material. The patients will be followed on average about once per week in an outpatient clinic until the Xeroform is removed, but they may continue to be seen until the STSG is fully healed.
Suprathel or Xeroform donor site application
The surgical procedure for recovery of a skin graft will be the same for all patients as follows. Once the patient is taken to the operating room, the selected donor site will be prepared and harvested with a Zimmer Dermatome set at 0.007 to 0.009 thousands of an inch for pediatric patients and 0.12 to 0.14 thousands for adult patients. After the harvesting procedure, the donor site will be covered with Telfa saturated with 1:10,000 epinephrine in normal saline until hemostasis is achieved. The Telfa will be irrigated off the donor site with the epinephrine saline solution. The surgeon will don a new pair of sterile gloves to handle the donor site dressing. The randomized dressing will be applied over the hemostatic donor site with an approximate 1-2cm border. Next, the wound will be dressed with 4x4 cotton gauze pads (fluffs), rolled gauze (Kerlix) and either Coban or BandNet.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Suprathel or Xeroform donor site application
The surgical procedure for recovery of a skin graft will be the same for all patients as follows. Once the patient is taken to the operating room, the selected donor site will be prepared and harvested with a Zimmer Dermatome set at 0.007 to 0.009 thousands of an inch for pediatric patients and 0.12 to 0.14 thousands for adult patients. After the harvesting procedure, the donor site will be covered with Telfa saturated with 1:10,000 epinephrine in normal saline until hemostasis is achieved. The Telfa will be irrigated off the donor site with the epinephrine saline solution. The surgeon will don a new pair of sterile gloves to handle the donor site dressing. The randomized dressing will be applied over the hemostatic donor site with an approximate 1-2cm border. Next, the wound will be dressed with 4x4 cotton gauze pads (fluffs), rolled gauze (Kerlix) and either Coban or BandNet.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Have a burn injury or open wound of any percentage TBSA
* Require a skin graft
Exclusion Criteria
* burn in close proximity to the donor site,
* the donor site has been harvested in a previous surgery,
* prisoners,
* children under the protection of the department of human services,
* pregnant women,
* those with impaired decision-making capacity.
31 Days
80 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Children's Hospital Colorado
OTHER
University of Colorado, Denver
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Steven Moulton, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Children's Hospital Colorado
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Children's Hospital Colorado
Aurora, Colorado, United States
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
Aurora, Colorado, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Reed JL, Pomerantz WJ. Emergency management of pediatric burns. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005 Feb;21(2):118-29. doi: 10.1097/01.pec.0000159058.95424.0d. No abstract available.
Hundeshagen G, Collins VN, Wurzer P, Sherman W, Voigt CD, Cambiaso-Daniel J, Nunez Lopez O, Sheaffer J, Herndon DN, Finnerty CC, Branski LK. A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing the Outpatient Treatment of Pediatric and Adult Partial-Thickness Burns with Suprathel or Mepilex Ag. J Burn Care Res. 2018 Feb 20;39(2):261-267. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000584.
Rashaan ZM, Krijnen P, Allema JH, Vloemans AF, Schipper IB, Breederveld RS. Usability and effectiveness of Suprathel(R) in partial thickness burns in children. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017 Aug;43(4):549-556. doi: 10.1007/s00068-016-0708-z. Epub 2016 Jul 18.
Kaartinen IS, Kuokkanen HO. Suprathel((R)) causes less bleeding and scarring than Mepilex((R)) Transfer in the treatment of donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2011 Sep;45(4-5):200-3. doi: 10.3109/2000656X.2011.583515.
Everett M, Massand S, Davis W, Burkey B, Glat PM. Use of a copolymer dressing on superficial and partial-thickness burns in a paediatric population. J Wound Care. 2015 Jul;24(7):S4-8. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2015.24.Sup7.S4.
Hansbrough W, Dore C, Hansbrough JF. Management of skin-grafted burn wounds with Xeroform and layers of dry coarse-mesh gauze dressing results in excellent graft take and minimal nursing time. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1995 Sep-Oct;16(5):531-4. doi: 10.1097/00004630-199509000-00012.
Gee Kee E, Kimble RM, Cuttle L, Stockton K. Comparison of three different dressings for partial thickness burns in children: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2013 Nov 25;14:403. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-403.
Piatkowski A, Drummer N, Andriessen A, Ulrich D, Pallua N. Randomized controlled single center study comparing a polyhexanide containing bio-cellulose dressing with silver sulfadiazine cream in partial-thickness dermal burns. Burns. 2011 Aug;37(5):800-4. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.01.027. Epub 2011 Feb 23.
Vloemans AF, Hermans MH, van der Wal MB, Liebregts J, Middelkoop E. Optimal treatment of partial thickness burns in children: a systematic review. Burns. 2014 Mar;40(2):177-90. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2013.09.016. Epub 2013 Nov 26.
Markl P, Prantl L, Schreml S, Babilas P, Landthaler M, Schwarze H. Management of split-thickness donor sites with synthetic wound dressings: results of a comparative clinical study. Ann Plast Surg. 2010 Nov;65(5):490-6. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181d37624.
Cunningham NR, Kashikar-Zuck S, Mara C, Goldschneider KR, Revicki DA, Dampier C, Sherry DD, Crosby L, Carle A, Cook KF, Morgan EM. Development and validation of the self-reported PROMIS pediatric pain behavior item bank and short form scale. Pain. 2017 Jul;158(7):1323-1331. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000914.
Liu Y, Yuan C, Wang J, Brown JG, Zhou F, Zhao X, Shen M, Hinds PS. Comparability of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric short form symptom measures across culture: examination between Chinese and American children with cancer. Qual Life Res. 2016 Oct;25(10):2523-2533. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1312-8. Epub 2016 May 10.
Brandon TG, Becker BD, Bevans KB, Weiss PF. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Tools for Collecting Patient-Reported Outcomes in Children With Juvenile Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Mar;69(3):393-402. doi: 10.1002/acr.22937.
Bieri D, Reeve RA, Champion DG, Addicoat L, Ziegler JB. The Faces Pain Scale for the self-assessment of the severity of pain experienced by children: development, initial validation, and preliminary investigation for ratio scale properties. Pain. 1990 May;41(2):139-150. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(90)90018-9.
Baxt C, Kassam-Adams N, Nance ML, Vivarelli-O'neill C, Winston FK. Assessment of pain after injury in the pediatric patient: child and parent perceptions. J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Jun;39(6):979-83; discussion 979-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.02.031.
Cummings EA, Reid GJ, Finley AG, McGrath PJ, Ritchie JA. Prevalence and source of pain in pediatric inpatients. Pain. 1996 Nov;68(1):25-31. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(96)03163-6.
Busche MN, Thraen AJ, Gohritz A, Rennekampff HO, Vogt PM. Burn Scar Evaluation Using the Cutometer(R) MPA 580 in Comparison to "Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale" and "Vancouver Scar Scale". J Burn Care Res. 2018 Jun 13;39(4):516-526. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irx009.
Highton L, Wallace C, Shah M. Use of Suprathel(R) for partial thickness burns in children. Burns. 2013 Feb;39(1):136-41. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2012.05.005. Epub 2012 Jun 13.
Monstrey S, Hoeksema H, Verbelen J, Pirayesh A, Blondeel P. Assessment of burn depth and burn wound healing potential. Burns. 2008 Sep;34(6):761-9. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2008.01.009. Epub 2008 Jun 3.
Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S, Tait AR, Merkel S, Foster R, Krane EJ, Davis PJ. A comparison of the clinical utility of pain assessment tools for children with cognitive impairment. Anesth Analg. 2008 Jan;106(1):72-8, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000287680.21212.d0.
van der Wal MB, Tuinebreijer WE, Bloemen MC, Verhaegen PD, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen PP. Rasch analysis of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) in burn scars. Qual Life Res. 2012 Feb;21(1):13-23. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9924-5. Epub 2011 May 20.
Schwarze H, Kuntscher M, Uhlig C, Hierlemann H, Prantl L, Ottomann C, Hartmann B. Suprathel, a new skin substitute, in the management of partial-thickness burn wounds: results of a clinical study. Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Feb;60(2):181-5. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318056bbf6.
Beltramini A, Milojevic K, Pateron D. Pain Assessment in Newborns, Infants, and Children. Pediatr Ann. 2017 Oct 1;46(10):e387-e395. doi: 10.3928/19382359-20170921-03.
Morris V, Murphy LM, Rosenberg M, Rosenberg L, Holzer CE 3rd, Meyer WJ 3rd. Itch assessment scale for the pediatric burn survivor. J Burn Care Res. 2012 May-Jun;33(3):419-24. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182372bfa.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
19-1048
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.