Effectiveness of open versus covered wound care methods for acute burn wounds
- 1Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Brawijaya University/Dr. Saiful Anwar General Hospital, Malang, Indonesia
- 2Undergraduated Program of Medical Doctor, Faculty of Medicine, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia
Abstract
Burn wound care may be managed using open or exposure techniques or covered dressing approaches, but comparative evidence remains heterogeneous. This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of open and covered wound care methods for acute burn wounds, with emphasis on infection or microbial contamination, wound healing and re-epithelialization, pain and patient comfort, dressing-change frequency, scar outcomes, length of hospital stay, and treatment-related costs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched for comparative studies involving human patients with acute burn wounds. Randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies, including cohort and case-control studies, were eligible. Seventy-six records were identified; 41 duplicates were removed, 35 records underwent title and abstract screening, 14 full-text reports were assessed, and seven studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Because of substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized qualitatively, and no meta-analysis was performed. The included studies did not demonstrate consistent superiority of either open or covered wound care across all outcomes. Open management showed favorable findings in selected studies for microbial contamination, some wound-healing outcomes, and treatment cost, particularly in resource-limited settings. Covered approaches showed advantages in selected populations for re-epithelialization, dressing-change frequency, patient comfort, and scar outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was limited by variation in study design, burn characteristics, dressing protocols, outcome definitions, and the inclusion of non-randomized studies. Wound-care selection should therefore be individualized according to burn characteristics, patient needs, and available resources. Further adequately powered randomized trials using standardized outcome measures are needed.
Related
- The Impact of Wound‐Related Pain on Quality of Life, Psychosocial Well‐Being and Pain Beliefs in Individuals With Chronic Lower Limb Wounds
- Accelerated Preoperative Wound Bed Preparation Using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With Instillation and Dwell Time: A Comparison With Conventional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Necrotic Wounds.
- Multidimensional Wound Healing Outcomes in Chronic and Complex Wounds: A Real-World Case Series With a Thermoreversible Wound Gel.
- A Cost-Effective Hydrogel-Based Wound Model for Quantitative Evaluation of Topical Treatments in Infected Wounds.
- Combined Ozone Therapy and Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation for Charcot Neuroarthropathy-Associated Foot Wounds
BibTeX
@article{arviansyah2026effectiveness,
title = {{Effectiveness of open versus covered wound care methods for acute burn wounds}},
author = {Arviansyah and Herman Yosef Limpat Wihastyoko and Yudi Siswanto and Wilma Agustina and Elisabeth Prajanti Sintaningrum and Azizah Irbah Nur Mustafa and Annysa Octavia Aulia and Angelia Gracia Febriana and Firlya Izzati Shofia Hanum},
journal = {Iranian Journal of Burns and Wound Research},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.66224/ijbwr.2.3.77},
url = {https://doi.org/10.66224/ijbwr.2.3.77},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Effectiveness of open versus covered wound care methods for acute burn wounds
AU - Arviansyah
AU - Herman Yosef Limpat Wihastyoko
AU - Yudi Siswanto
AU - Wilma Agustina
AU - Elisabeth Prajanti Sintaningrum
AU - Azizah Irbah Nur Mustafa
AU - Annysa Octavia Aulia
AU - Angelia Gracia Febriana
AU - Firlya Izzati Shofia Hanum
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/01
JO - Iranian Journal of Burns and Wound Research
DO - 10.66224/ijbwr.2.3.77
UR - https://doi.org/10.66224/ijbwr.2.3.77
AB - Burn wound care may be managed using open or exposure techniques or covered dressing approaches, but comparative evidence remains heterogeneous. This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of open and covered wound care methods for acute burn wounds, with emphasis on infection or microbial contamination, wound healing and re-epithelialization, pain and patient comfort, dressing-change frequency, scar outcomes, length of hospital stay, and treatment-related costs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched for comparative studies involving human patients with acute burn wounds. Randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies, including cohort and case-control studies, were eligible. Seventy-six records were identified; 41 duplicates were removed, 35 records underwent title and abstract screening, 14 full-text reports were assessed, and seven studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Because of substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized qualitatively, and no meta-analysis was performed. The included studies did not demonstrate consistent superiority of either open or covered wound care across all outcomes. Open management showed favorable findings in selected studies for microbial contamination, some wound-healing outcomes, and treatment cost, particularly in resource-limited settings. Covered approaches showed advantages in selected populations for re-epithelialization, dressing-change frequency, patient comfort, and scar outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was limited by variation in study design, burn characteristics, dressing protocols, outcome definitions, and the inclusion of non-randomized studies. Wound-care selection should therefore be individualized according to burn characteristics, patient needs, and available resources. Further adequately powered randomized trials using standardized outcome measures are needed.
SN - 3060-8414
ER -