الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 118 |  |  |
| | | from | 118 | | |
Abstract
With an overall incidence of more than 800 cases per 1 million persons per year, only motor vehicle accidents cause more accidental deaths than bums. Advances in trauma and bum management over the past three decades have resulted in improved survival and reduced morbidity from major bums. Twenty-five years ago, the mortality rate of a 50% body surface area bum in a young adult was about 500/0, despite treatment. Today, that same bum results in less than 10% mortality. Ten years ago, an 80 to 90% body surface area bum yielded 100/0 survival. Today, over 50% of these patients survive. Nevertheless, although burn injuries are frequent in our society, many physicians feel uncomfortable managing patients with thermal injuries.
Aim 0 the work: in our study here we try to ask for the efficacy of new ointment ”BIOPROCT” as a topical agent in teatment of 2nd deree bum in comparison with the traditiuonal method and MEBO ointment.
Patient & mehod: Sixty patients were enrolled to in this study, suffering from partial-thickness IIa-degree (superficial) and IIb-degree (deep dermal) thelmal burn (Hot liquids or open flames) using either ”MEBO” ointment in 20 cases, ”Bioproct” ointment in anather 20 cases, or sulphadiazine cream anather 20 cases. Wound healing rate, bacterial infection rate, pain score, and cost was recorded.
The inclusion criteria was consisted of burns less than 20% total body surface area (TBSA) that was evaluated within 48 hours post-injury with no other injuries and confined to the trunk and/or upper and lower extremities. Extreme of ages were excluded from this study.
Result: The meam time for Reepithelization of 95% of the area were 13.8±6.2, 12.2±5.2 & 14±5.3 for Bioproct, MEBO & Sliver sulfdiazine respectively. There were pain after dressing in all cases espciaIly in the 1 st \\’eek but it was mild in most cases ofMEBO & Sliver sulfdiazine but the
pain was sever with Bicproct in sever case the patients were given anlgesia in the form of Diclofenac injection directly post-dressing. Only 3 (15%), 3 (15%) & 4 (20%) cases were infected with application of Bioproct, MEBO & Sliver sulfdiazine respectively.these paients received I st generation antibiotic ( cefadroxil ) in oral form. mean number of tubes in the 1 st week were 12, 17 & 17 for Bioproct, MEBO & Sliver sulfdiazine respectively.In the 2nd week were 9, 11 & 12 for Bioproct, TvfEBO & Sliver sulfdiazine respectively. ln the 3rd week were 4, 5 & 9 for Bioproct, MEBO & Sliver sulfdiazine respectively, so the overall cost was more MEBO than Bioproct than Sliver sulfdiazine in ascending
Conclusion: We concluded that ” Bioproct” ointment has the same efficacy as ”MEBO” in bum healing but costly more effective and can be used as alternative to the traditional mehod in bum dressing but its drowback include ,severe pain with its application espcially in the 1 st week of teatment.
---- -,.
” . i. .