Article Sidebar

article details
Date Published: 28/10/2025
Online Published: 28/10/2025
Abstract Views: 75
Views article details: 15
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54804/yhthvb.5.2025.459
Issue
No. 5 (2025)
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Ta, H. H., Mai, X. T., & Lam, T. D. C. (2025). Evaluation of the topical therapeutic effect of 5% Mafenide acetate solution on deep burn wounds. Journal of Disaster Medicine and Burn Injuries, 5, 50-59. https://doi.org/10.54804/yhthvb.5.2025.459

Evaluation of the topical therapeutic effect of 5% Mafenide acetate solution on deep burn wounds

Ta Huy Hoang1,, Mai Xuan Thao1, Lam Thi Dan Chi1
1 Le Huu Trac National Burn Hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 5% mafenide acetate solution in the topical treatment of deep burn wounds, compared with 1% silver sulfadiazine (SSD). The study aimed to compare local wound healing and infection control between these two standard burn treatments.
Subjects and methods: We conducted a prospective, controlled, before-and-after intervention trial on 40 patients with deep burns admitted to the Adult Burn Department of Le Huu Trac National Burn Hospital between June 2024 and June 2025. Patients were allocated into two groups of 20 each: The study group received a topical 5% mafenide acetate solution, while the control group received 1% silver Sulfadiazine. After five days of topical treatment, all patients underwent complete excision of full-thickness necrotic tissue and autologous meshed split-thickness skin grafting (expansion ratio 1:1.5).
Postoperatively, the study group continued with 5% Mafenide acetate for an additional five days; thereafter, both groups had their dressings changed daily with 0.1% Berberine solution until graft take. Outcome measures included local wound clinical course (inflammation and exudation), graft take rate, time to complete wound epithelialization, and microbiological results (culture positivity rate and bacterial colony counts).
Results: The two groups were comparable in age, sex distribution, burn size, and burn etiology. The group treated with 5% mafenide acetate showed a significantly faster reduction in local inflammation and wound exudate compared to the 1% SSD group. Mean bacterial colony counts decreased significantly in the Mafenide group (from 162.6 ± 62.61 to 111.0 ± 35.0 CFU) compared to the SSD group (from 159.89 ± 62.41 to 154.89 ± 58.97 CFU). The most commonly isolated organisms were Staphylococcus aureus (40.04%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (33.33%), with the SSD group tending to have a higher proportion of P. aeruginosa isolates. Graft take rates were similar between groups (70% in the Mafenide group vs. 65% in the SSD group on postoperative day 5), and the time to complete wound epithelialization did not differ significantly.
Conclusion: A 5% mafenide acetate solution is an effective option for local management of deep burn wounds. It provides improved infection control compared to 1% silver sulfadiazine and is safe for use in conjunction with autologous meshed skin grafts, without delaying wound epithelialization.

Article Details

Keywords

Mafenide acetate 5%, deep burns, topical treatment, antibacterial effect, skin graft

References

1. Nguyễn Ngọc Tuấn (2018). “Dịch tễ bỏng và bệnh bỏng”, Giáo Trình bỏng - Nhà xuất bản quân đội nhân dân, tr. 13 - 48.
2. Nguyễn Ngọc Tuấn (2018). “Nhiễm khuẩn và nhiễm khuẩn huyết trong bỏng”, Giáo trình bỏng - Nhà xuất bản Quân đội Nhân dân, tr. 243 - 65.
3. Nguyễn Ngọc Tuấn (2018), Thuốc điều trị tại chô vết bỏng”, Giáo Trình bỏng - Nhà xuất bản Quân đội Nhân dân, tr. 154 - 61.
4. Lansdown, A. (2006). “Silver in health care: Antimicrobial effects and safety in use”. Current problems in dermatology-basel; 33(R): p. 17.
5. Lê Thị Thu Hằng (2023). “Nghiên cứu điều chế và đánh giá tác dụng kháng khuẩn in vitro trên trực khuẩn mủ xanh của dung dịch Mafenide acetat 2,5% và 5% từ nguyên liệu sản xuất trong nước”, Đề tài cơ sở cấp Học viện Quân y.
6. Nguyễn Ngọc Tuấn (2018). “Các phương pháp phẫu thuật điều trị bỏng”, Giáo Trình bỏng - Nhà xuất bản Quân đội Nhân dân, Tr 134 - 53.
7. Saaiq, M., S. Ahmad, and M.S. Zaib (2015), “Burn wound infections and antibiotic susceptibility patterns at Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences”, Islamabad, Pakistan. World journal of plastic surgery, 2015. 4(1): p. 9.
8. Hashemi, B., A. Bayat, T. Kazemei, and N. Azarpira (2011). “Comparison between topical honey and mafenide acetate in treatment of auricular burn”,
9. Maggi SP, S.P., Smith PD, Hill DP, Ko F, Robson MC (1999). “The efficacy of 5% Sulfamylon solution for the treatment of contaminated explanted human meshed skin grafts”. Burns. 25(3). 237-241. 1999.
10. Acaban, M.B., Sarı, A., Demirbağ, H. O., Ersöz, G., & Aktaş, S.. “The effects of topical mafenide acetate application on skin graft survival in bacterial contaminated wounds”. Burns, 50(2), 433-443. 2024.
11. Pendleton, R.A., & Holmes IV, J. H. (2010), “Systemic absorption of amphotericin B with topical 5% mafenide acetate/amphotericin B solution for grafted burn wounds: is it clinically relevant?”. Burns, 36(1), 38-41. 2010.