Hemocompatibility of different burn wound dressings
Markus Denzinger MD  Manuel Held MD  Hanna Scheffler  Hanna Haag  Andreas K. Nussler PhD Hans Peter Wendel PhD  Christian Schlensak MD  Adrien Daigeler MD  Stefanie Krajewski PhD
First published: 30 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12739
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/wrr.12739.
ePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE
Abstract
A variety of wound dressing are available for burns. Furthermore, although their impacts on wound healing have been studied sufficiently, their effects on blood remain unclear. Meanwhile, this aspect is extremely important, since blood interacts with the wound dressing, especially in extensive burn injuries. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the hemocompatibility and immunogenicity of different burn wound dressings.

Accordingly, human whole blood (n=5) was anticoagulated with heparin, treated with different wound dressings and incubated at 37 °C for 30 minutes. Different parameters for coagulation and hemocompatibility were evaluated before and after incubation.

Consequently, Jelonet, Xenoderm and Matriderm showed higher TAT‐III concentrations, Jelonet, Xenoderm, EZ Derm and Matriderm were higher β‐thromboglobulin; EZ Derm and Burntec showed higher SC5b‐9 concentrations after incubation with whole blood.

Our ex vivo study provided initial insights into the hemocompatibility and immunogenicity of different burn wound dressings. Moreover, Xenografts (Xenoderm and EZ Derm), Jelonet and Matriderm showed a hemostyptic effect while EZ Derm and Burntec activated the complement system. Therefore, further studies must be conducted to analyze the possible effects in vivo.