Managing burn wounds with SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam: two case reports
© Imran et al. 2016
Received: 8 March 2016
Accepted: 27 April 2016
Published: 12 May 2016
Successful wound healing depends on various factors, including exudate control, prevention of microbial contaminants, and moisture balance. We report two cases of managing burn wounds with SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam dressing.
In Case 1, a 2-year-old Asian girl presented with a delayed (11 days) wound on her right leg. She sustained a thermal injury from a hot iron that was left idle on the floor. Clinical inspection revealed an infected wound with overlying eschar that traversed her knee joint. As her parents refused surgical debridement under general anesthesia, hydrotherapy and wound dressing using SMARTPORE Technology Polyurethane foam were used. Despite the delay in presentation of this linear thermal pediatric burn injury that crossed the knee joint, the patient’s response to treatment and its outcome were highly encouraging. She was cooperative and tolerated each dressing change without the need of supplemental analgesia. Her wound was healed by 24 days post-admission. In Case 2, a 25-year-old Asian man presented with a mixed thickness thermal flame burn on his left leg. On examination, the injury was a mix of deep and superficial partial thickness burn, comprising approximately 3 % of his total body surface area. SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam was used on his wound; his response to the treatment was very encouraging as the dressing facilitated physiotherapy and mobility. The patient rated the pain during dressing change as 2 on a scale of 10 and his pain score remained the same in every subsequent change. His wound showed evidence of epithelialization by day 7 post-burn. There were no adverse events reported.
Managing burn wounds with SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam resulted in reduced pain during dressing changes and the successful healing of partial and mixed thickness wounds. The use of SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam dressings showed encouraging results and requires further research as a desirable management option in burn wounds.
KeywordsCase report Atraumatic dressing removal Burn wounds Exudate Exudating wound Wound dressing SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam
Phase 1 – Hemostasis (clot formation by platelets)
Phase 2 – Inflammation (debridement of injured tissue by inflammatory cells)
Phase 3 – Proliferation (occurrence of epithelialization, fibroplasia, and angiogenesis, formation of granulation tissue, and initiation of wound contraction) and
Phase 4 – Remodeling (restoration of the tensile strength of injured skin through collagen formation)
Wound healing is successful when these four phases occur in a proper sequence and timeframe . In contrast, wound healing can be delayed under the influence of conditions such as desiccation, infection or presence of abnormal bacteria, maceration, necrosis, pressure, trauma, and edema .
Able to control exudates without drying out the wound surfaces.
Can act as a barrier to external contaminants.
Allows atraumatic removal with no dressing left in the wounds.
Provides moisture vapor permeability sufficient to prevent over-hydration of the wound and surrounding skin.
Reduces pain during dressing change.
SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam is an example of foam dressing that has these characteristics. The purpose of this case report is to describe the clinical presentation, objective findings, and outcomes of burn wound management for one pediatric and one adult using SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam.
A 2-year-old Asian girl presented to us 13 months ago with a delayed wound on her right leg. Eleven days prior to her arrival at our hospital she sustained a thermal injury from a hot iron that was left idle on the floor. Her parents did not recall any first aid measures; they applied topical oil on the burn area and expected that the wound would heal naturally. As the wound failed to progress, they decided to bring her to our Emergency Department for further assessment and management. Upon arrival, she was pyrexial but comfortable. Wound inspection revealed an infected wound with overlying eschar on her right lower limb that traversed her knee joint. The total body surface area (TBSA) affected was approximately 5 %. She was not on any medication and had no known drug allergies. Her hematological parameters were within the normal range. She was commenced on analgesia as necessary and antibiotics were administered intravenously based on wound culture and sensitivities.
SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam is designed for the hydration and management of partial and full thickness wounds with exudates . It is made up of three layers: a protection layer, an absorption layer, and a wound contact layer. The wound contact layer (inner layer) consists of uniform micropores that helps prevent new epithelial cells from growing into the dressing material. This keeps the skin from sticking to the dressing surface as it heals, leading to reduced pain during dressing change. The high absorption and retention capacity of the absorption layer (middle layer), on the other hand, allows maintenance of a proper moist condition and shortens wound healing time, as well as preventing leakage of exudates. The protection layer is the outermost layer, which functions to prevent external contamination and bacterial invasion .
Apart from wound dressings, multidisciplinary care also plays an important role in holistic assessment and treatment of patients with wounds. Apart from assessing and treating wounds, wound care also entails management of factors that could influence wound healing (for example, underlying disease, malnutrition, or possible infection) . Notably, a single wound may benefit from different types of dressing as it progresses through the stages of wound healing. Thus, it is of paramount importance for the wound care team to be well versed with the spectrum of advanced dressings available, from a clinical efficacy and cost-benefit analysis point of view.
In the case of our patients, combining SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam as wound dressing with multidisciplinary care and current evidence-based practice resulted in good treatment outcomes. Limitations include planar wound-dressing interface and minimal range-of-movement restriction as the foam must be secured with a secondary dressing to keep it in place. Otherwise, the SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam has performed well in managing our patients’ wounds and its efficacy exceeded our expectations. Both patients were comfortable with the dressing. The patients reported minimal pain upon removal, facilitating a more pleasant experience during dressing changes, for both the patients and the attending nurses. It also showed highly satisfactory fluid absorption and exudate retention capacity. Nonetheless, it is important to note that wound management is commonly compromised by various co-morbidities, including the presence of infection, as well as vascular and systemic disease. Further comparison studies over a larger population would be required to further assess and definitively evaluate its efficacy in burn wound healing.
Here, we presented two cases of burn wound management with SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam. The use of SMARTPORE Technology polyurethane foam dressings showed encouraging results and requires further research as a desirable management option in burn wounds.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient’s legal guardian for publication of the first case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of the second case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
The authors would like to acknowledge Mundipharma Pte Ltd for commissioning MIMS Pte Ltd to provide writing assistance and editorial support. The views expressed in this manuscript are solely those of the authors.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V. The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:1528–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guo S, Dipietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010;89:219–29.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Thomas HC. Checklist for factors affecting wound healing. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2011;24:192.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Flanagan M. Wound healing and skin integrity: principles and practice. UK: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
- Brett DW. A review of moisture-control dressings in wound care. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2006;33(6 Suppl):S3–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Upton D, Morgan J, Andrews A, et al. The pain and stress of wound treatment in patients with burns: an international burn specialist perspective. Wounds. 2013;25:199–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Medifoam Product Monograph. Seoul: Mundipharma Korea Ltd. Last updated: 2015.Google Scholar
- Park YO, Minn KW, Hur JP. The effect of Medifoam (hydrophilic polyurethane foam) dressing in split thickness skin graft donor site. J Korean Soc Plastic Reconstr Surg. 2002;29:297–301.Google Scholar
- Naude L, Bruwer F. The role of the private nursing practitioner in a multi-disciplinary team. Prof Nurs Today. 2006;10:8–12.Google Scholar