Premium
Comparing the use of a novel antibiotic‐free film‐forming topical wound dressing versus a topical triple antibiotic in dermatologic surgical procedures including Mohs micrographic surgery
Author(s) -
Benedetto A.V.,
Staidle J.P.,
Schoenfeld J.,
Benedetto E.A.,
Benedetto P.X.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of the european academy of dermatology and venereology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.655
H-Index - 107
eISSN - 1468-3083
pISSN - 0926-9959
DOI - 10.1111/jdv.16965
Subject(s) - medicine , antibiotics , mohs surgery , dermatology , erythema , wound care , surgery , contact dermatitis , allergic contact dermatitis , randomized controlled trial , dermatologic surgery , allergy , microbiology and biotechnology , immunology , biology
Background There is no universally accepted protocol of topical wound care after cutaneous surgical procedures. The current practice is to use petrolatum‐based products, commonly containing topical antibiotics. The rise in antibiotic‐resistant bacteria and increased risk of allergic and contact dermatitis due to the use of topical antibiotics is well established. Objective To compare the prevalence of contact dermatitis, the infection rate and the subjective measures of healing of a novel, antibiotic‐free, film‐forming silicone‐based wound dressing to a topical triple antibiotic petrolatum‐based ointment in patients undergoing invasive dermatological interventions in two arms: (1) Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and (2) a combination of various routine dermatologic surgical procedures. Design The 231 patients were enrolled in this open‐label, randomized, single‐blinded study. Patients applied the products immediately after surgery and daily afterwards. Clinicians evaluated the surgical site for infection or contact dermatitis at all follow‐up visits. Acute wound healing progression was assessed using a rating scale against clinical experience and expected results from −4 (much worse) to +4 (much better). Results Contact dermatitis was significantly decreased in the wound dressing group compared to the topical antibiotic group (0 vs 15.9%, P < 0.001). There was no difference between the study arms (Mohs vs. non‐Mohs, P = 0.242). Infection rate was not significantly different between the groups ( P > 0.05) and between the study arms ( P > 0.05). Assessor‐rated secondary outcomes like healing time, healing quality, erythema and new tissue quality were significantly better in the wound dressing group, while comfort and perceived overall satisfaction were better in the antibiotic group. Patient‐rated outcomes did not show any difference between groups and between study arms. Conclusion The wound dressing used in this study is a topical silicone gel preparation and presents a viable alternative to topical antibiotics for postoperative wound care without enhancing the risk of infection.