Volume 8, Issue 2, April 2020, Page: 48-55
Accelerated Wound Healing by a Topical Wound Healing Lipogel in Patients Undergoing Catheter De-placement - Evidence from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study
Thomas Eberlein, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine and Medical Science, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain
Sami Siam, Department of nephrology, University hospital Muenster, Westphalian Wilhelms University, Muenster, Germany
Received: Jan. 31, 2020;       Accepted: Feb. 21, 2020;       Published: Mar. 17, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.js.20200802.12      View  52      Downloads  65
Objective: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess a novel wound model and to compare the wound healing properties of a topical wound healing hydroactive lipogel (MediGel®) promoting moist wound environment versus standard treatment by a standard plaster und dry environmental conditions in patients undergoing catheter de-placement as a model for non-acute wounds affecting all skin layers in real life conditions (moist environment does improve granulation & epithelialization supported by Lipogel – the MEDIGEL trial). Methods: Patients (n=69) admitted to the dialysis ward of a tertiary care institution with acute or chronic renal insufficiency and in need for dialysis were enrolled into a prospective, observer-blind, randomized, controlled, inter-individual experimental comparison study. Patients enrolled were undergoing placement of Sheldon multi-lumen catheter (11 French diameter) in the external jugular vein at the neck by Seldinger technique to enable access for hemodialysis. One group of patients which had catheter displaced after one session of hemodialysis was regarded as acute wound group. A different group of patients had catheter withdrawn after 14 (+/- 2 days) and was classified as non-acute wound group. Topical treatments were randomly allocated, i.e. traditional care with standard plaster (control group) or investigational product (promoting moist environment) beneath a standard plaster (investigational product). Wound healing was assessed (digital photography, visual scoring) and analyzed via comparison of area under curve at day 0, 3 and 7 after displacement of catheter. Results: Evaluation showed significantly faster wound healing results for the investigational product in comparison to standard (all time points) and with significant AUC difference in both patient groups, acute and non-acute. Visible re-epithelialization was recorded from day 3 to day 7 in acute wounds, delayed in non-acute wounds. Standard plaster-treated wounds remained open and had markedly larger wound area. Formation of fibrous scar tissue was minimal but less prominent in patients treated with the hydroactive lipogel in the non-acute group due to faster epithelialization promoted by moist environment. Conclusion: Clinically relevant accelerated epithelialization and faster wound healing were observed for the investigational product compared to traditional treatment indicating superiority of moist wound environmental conditions both in acute and non-acute wounds after displacement of catheter placed into the jugular vein for 5 hours or 2 weeks in patients undergoing hemodialysis. The model is an innovative approach to study acute and non-acute wounds affecting all three skin layers and should be further investigated.
Acute and Chronic Wound Healing, Novel Wound Model, Lipogel
To cite this article
Thomas Eberlein, Sami Siam, Accelerated Wound Healing by a Topical Wound Healing Lipogel in Patients Undergoing Catheter De-placement - Evidence from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study, Journal of Surgery. Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020, pp. 48-55. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20200802.12
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
National Health System – Northamptonshire Healthcare (2017). Guidelines for the assessment management of wounds. Retrieved from https://www.nhft.nhs.uk/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n1793.
Australian Research Society (2019). Wound care evidence based guidelines summary. Retrieved from https://www.research.qut.au.html.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinderchirurgie e. V. (2013). AWMF Leitlinien-Register 006-129 Leitlinie zu Wunden und Wundbehandlung. Retrieved from https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/006-129.html.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Wundheilung und Wundbehandlung e. V. (2012). AWMF Leitlinien-Register 091/001S3-Leitlinie Lokaltherapie chronischer Wunden bei den Risiken CVI, PAVK und Diabetes mellitus. Retrieved from http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/091-001.html.
Heyer K, Augustin M, Protz K, Herberger K, Spehr C, Rustenach SJ (2013). Effectiveness of advanced versus conventional wound dressings on healing of chronic wounds: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dermatology. 226 (2): 172-84. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23711429.
MediGel®. Information for Use (July 2016). Retrieved from www.medigel.de.
Davis S, Gil J, Valdes J, Eberlein T (2013). Evaluating the efficacy of various over the counter topical formulations for stimulating epithelialization in a porcine partial thickness wound model. EWMA Kopenhagen Nov. 2013.
Eberlein T, Gerke P, Lorenz H, Ammer R (2016). Advantages in wound healing by a topical easy to use wound healing lipo-gel for abrasive wounds-Evidence from a randomized, controlled experimental clinical study. Wound Medicine. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wndm.2016.09.003.
Martin P, Nunan R (2015). Cellular and molecular mechanisms of repair in acute and chronic wound healing. Br J Dermatol. 173 (2): 370–378. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4671308/.
Wigger-Alberti W, Kuhlmann M, Ekanayake S, Wilhelm D (2009) Using a novel wound model to investigate the healing properties of products of superficial wounds. J Wound Care 18 (3): 123-128. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19247233.
Gottrup, F, Agren, MS and Karlsmark, T (2000). Models for use in wound healing research: a survey focusing on in vitro and in vivo adult soft tissue. Wound Repair Regen 8: 83-96. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10810034.
Wilhelm K-P, Wilhelm D, Bielfeldt S (2016) Models of wound healing: an emphasis on clinical studies. Skin Res Technol. doi: 10.1111/srt.12317. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27503009.
Seldinger S (1953). Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography; a new technique. Acta radiol. 39 (5): 368-76. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13057644.
Conz PA, Dissegna D, Rodighiero MP, La Greca G (1997). Cannulation of the internal jugular vein: comparison of the classic Seldinger technique and an ultrasound guided method. J Nephrol. 10 (6): 311-3. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9442443.
Eming SA, Martin P, Tomic-Canic M (2014). Wound repair and regeneration: Mechanisms, signaling, and translation. Science translational medicine. 6 (265): 265. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973620/.
EUnetHTA (2013). Retrieved from https://www.eunethta.eu/methodological-guideline-for-rea-of-pharmaceuticals-direct-and-indirect-comparison/.
Frodin T, Skogh M (1984). Measurement of transdermal water loss using an evaporimeter to follow the restitution of the barrier layer of human epidermis after stripping the stratum corneum. Acta Derm Venereol 64: 537-40. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6084928.
Fitzpatrick Classification of Skin Types I through VI. Published in: Fitzpatrick T (1988). The Validity and Practicality of Sun-Reactive Skin Types I Through VI. Arch Dermatol. 124 (6): 869-871. Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/549509.
Descôteaux J (2007). Statistical power: An historical introduction. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. 3 (2): 28-34.
Larsen HF, Ahlström MG, Gjerdrum LMR, Mogensen M, Ghathian K, Calum H, Sørensen AL, Forman JL, Vandeven M, Holerca MN, Du-Thumm L, Jorgensen LN, Ågren MS (2017). Noninvasive measurement of reepithelialization and microvascularity of suction-blister wounds with benchmarking to histology. Wound Repair Regeneration. 25 (6): 984-993. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29316016.
Ahlström MG, Gjerdrum LMR, Larsen HF, Fuchs C, Sørensen AL, Forman JL, Ågren MS, Mogensen M (2018). Suction blister lesions and epithelialization monitored by optical coherence tomography. Skin Research and Technology. 24 (1): 65-72. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28685861.
Wilhelm KP, Wilhelm D, Bielfeldt S (2017). Models of wound healing: an emphasis on clinical studies. Skin Research and Technology. 23 (1): 3-12. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27503009.
Browse journals by subject