Open AccessComparison of the efficacy and safety of povidone‐iodine foam dressing (Betafoam), hydrocellular foam dressing (Allevyn), and petrolatum gauze for split‐thickness skin graft donor site dressing
Author(s) -
Pak Chang Sik,
Park Dae Hwan,
Oh Tae Suk,
Lee Won Jai,
Jun Young Joon,
Lee Kyung Ah,
Oh Kap Sung,
Kwak Kyung Hee,
Rhie Jong Won
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international wound journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.867
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1742-481X
pISSN - 1742-4801
DOI - 10.1111/iwj.13043
Subject(s) - medicine , surgery , wound dressing , moisturizer , adverse effect , chemistry , materials science , food science , composite material
We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a povidone‐iodine (PVP‐I) foam dressing (Betafoam) for donor site dressing versus a hydrocellular foam dressing (Allevyn) and petrolatum gauze. This prospective Phase 4 study was conducted between March 2016 and April 2017 at eight sites in Korea. A total of 106 consenting patients (aged ≥ 19 years, scheduled for split‐thickness skin graft) were randomised 1:1:1 to PVP‐I foam, hydrocellular, or petrolatum gauze dressings for up to 28 days after donor site collection. We assessed time to complete epithelialisation, proportion with complete epithelialisation at Day 14, and wound infection. Epithelialisation time was the shortest with PVP‐I foam dressing (12.74 ± 3.51 days) versus hydrocellular foam dressing (16.61 ± 4.45 days; P = 0.0003) and petrolatum gauze (15.06 ± 4.26 days, P = 0.0205). At Day 14, 83.87% of PVP‐I foam dressing donor sites had complete epithelialisation, versus 36.36% of hydrocellular foam dressing donor sites ( P = 0.0001) and 55.88% of petrolatum gauze donor sites ( P = 0.0146). There were no wound infections. Incidence rates of adverse events were comparable across groups ( P = 0.1940). PVP‐I foam dressing required less time to complete epithelialisation and had a good safety profile.