Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2025
Author Spotlight: A Multi-Depth Porcine Model for Comprehensive Study of Burn Injuries and Healing Processes
Published on: February 23, 2024
Acute healing outcomes in paediatric partial thickness burns using Epiprotect® and Biobrane®: A retrospective
Ameer Khamise1, Hadas Lapid2, Ankit Mishra3
1The University of Buckingham Medical School, Hunter Street, MK18 1EG Buckingham, United Kingdom.
Insights
Epiprotect® and Biobrane® show comparable healing for paediatric partial thickness burns. Epiprotect® resulted in significantly lower infection rates, suggesting it as a viable alternative for burn wound management.
Area of Science:
- Burn Care
- Wound Healing
- Regenerative Medicine
Background:
- Partial thickness (PT) burns in children require effective wound management to ensure optimal healing and minimize complications.
- Biobrane® has been a standard treatment, but alternatives are sought to improve patient outcomes.
- Evaluating new dressings like Epiprotect® is crucial for advancing paediatric burn care.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the acute healing outcomes of Epiprotect® versus Biobrane® in paediatric patients with partial thickness burns.
- To assess secondary outcomes including infection rates, adherence, and hospital stay.
- To determine the efficacy of Epiprotect® as a potential alternative to Biobrane®.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective study included paediatric patients (<18 years) with PT burns treated with either Epiprotect® or Biobrane® over five years.
- Primary outcome: time to complete wound healing.
- Secondary outcomes: adherence, infection rates, length of hospital stay, and need for re-operation.
Main Results:
- Epiprotect® demonstrated a trend towards longer healing times (19.5 days) compared to Biobrane® (16 days), though not statistically significant (P=0.14).
- Significantly lower infection rates were observed with Epiprotect® (2.6%) versus Biobrane® (16.4%) (P=0.048).
- Hospitalization length and return-to-theatre rates were comparable between the two dressings.
Conclusions:
- Epiprotect® offers comparable acute healing outcomes to Biobrane® in paediatric partial thickness burns.
- Epiprotect® presents a significant advantage with lower infection rates, positioning it as a viable alternative.
- Further prospective randomized trials are recommended to fully elucidate short- and long-term outcomes.
Aim:
To compare the acute healing outcomes of Biobrane® and Epiprotect® in paediatric partial thickness (PT) burns.
Methods:
All paediatric patients (age <18 years) with PT burns managed using either Biobrane® or Epiprotect® over a 5-year period at our burns unit were included. The primary outcome was time to complete healing. Secondary outcomes included adherence, infection rates, length of hospital stay, duration of acute follow-up and return to the theatre.
Results:
Among the 99 patients included, 38 received Epiprotect® and 61 received Biobrane®. The mean total body surface area (TBSA) was 6% (range 1%-15%) and median age was 21 months (range 5-169 months). Median time to healing in the Epiprotect® group was 19.5 days and 16 days in the Biobrane® group (P = .14). The median hospitalisation length was the same for both products (2 days, P = .85). Infection rate was lower in the Epiprotect® group (2.6% vs 16.4%, P = .048). There was no difference in adherence rate. These trends were preserved when depth sub-groups were analysed. Adherence and infection rates were not affected by post-operative antibiotics (P > .99 and P = .65, respectively) in either group. The rate of return to the theatre for further surgery was 13.2% for both products (P > .99).
Conclusion:
Our findings demonstrate that acute healing outcomes with Epiprotect® in paediatric PT burns are comparable to those with Biobrane®, with significantly lower infection rates for Epiprotect®. These results suggest that Epiprotect® is a viable alternative to Biobrane®. Nevertheless, further prospective randomised studies are required to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes.
