Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Efficacy and Safety of Tetrachlorodecaoxide in Comparison with Super-oxidised Solution in Wound Healing

  • Parikh, Romil (Department of Surgery, Grant Government Medical College) ;
  • Bakhshi, Girish (Department of Surgery, Grant Government Medical College) ;
  • Naik, Madhushree (Department of Surgery, Grant Government Medical College) ;
  • Gaikwad, Bhargav (Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Grant Government Medical College) ;
  • Jadhav, Kavita (Department of Surgery, Grant Government Medical College) ;
  • Tayade, Mukund (Department of Surgery, Grant Government Medical College)
  • Received : 2016.01.29
  • Accepted : 2016.05.31
  • Published : 2016.09.21
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background Some of the relatively newer, more efficacious, and potent topical wound dressing solutions include tetrachlorodecaoxide and super-oxidised solution. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these two drugs. Methods This is a block-randomised, double blind, parallel-arm, post-marketing study. One hundred fifty patients with ulcers (75 blocks uniform for sex, ulcer aetiology, diabetes mellitus, and wound area score) were randomised into the two treatment arms. Patients were observed for eight weeks with weekly assessments. One hundred and twenty patients completed the study. Wound healing was objectively assessed by measurement of wound area, scoring of wound exudation and tissue type, and using the pressure ulcer scale of healing Tool (validated for multiple wound aetiologies). Subjective improvement in pain was noted using a visual analogue scale. Both groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U test on all indicators. Results Difference in change in wound tissue type in the two groups was significant (${\alpha}$=0.05) by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis at the end of week two (ITT and PP, P<0.001) and week four (ITT, P=0.010; PP, P=0.009). P-values for other comparisons were not significant (P>0.05). No study-related adverse events were observed. Conclusions Both drugs are efficacious. Tetrachlorodecaoxide yields healthy granulation tissue earlier. Both drugs appear to be safe for application.

Keywords

References

  1. Paola LD, Brocco E, Senesi A, et al. Super-oxidized solution (SOS) therapy for infected diabetic foot ulcers. Wounds 2006;18:262-70.
  2. Hinz J, Hautzinger H, Stahl KW. Rationale for and results from a randomised, double-blind trial of tetrachlorodecaoxygen anion complex in wound healing. Lancet 1986;1:825-8.
  3. Zenker W, Thiede A, Dommes M, et al. Effectiveness of tetrachlorodecaoxide (TCDO) in the treatment of complicated disorders of wound healing: a controlled study: TCDO versus PVP-iodine complex. Chirurg 1986;57:334-9.
  4. Kapur V, Marwaha AK. Evaluation of effect and comparison of superoxidised solution (oxum) v/s povidone iodine (betadine). Indian J Surg 2011;73:48-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-010-0189-y
  5. Bryant R. Super-oxidized water kills bacteria; demonstrates potential for healing. Dermatol Times 2005;26.
  6. Youngman RJ, Wagner GR, Kuhne FW, et al. Biochemical oxygen activation as the basis for the physiological action of tetrachlorodecaoxide (TCDO). Z Naturforsch C 1985;40:409-14.
  7. Hinz J, Kuhne FW, Stahl KW. Local tetrachlorodecaoxide treatment to improve oxygen supply to non-healing wounds. Lancet 1984;2:630.
  8. Ullmann U, Kuhne FW. In vitro investigations on the antibacterial action and the influence on the phagocytic chemiluminescence of tetrachlorodecaoxide--a new, non-metallic oxygen complex. Infection 1985;13 Suppl 2:S236-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01644437
  9. Abhyankar SV, Venkatesh V, Karnad S, et al. Efficacy and safety of oxum in treatment of chronic wounds. J Indian Med Assoc 2009;107:904-6.
  10. Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin Res 2011;2:109-12. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.83221
  11. Stotts NA, Rodeheaver GT, Thomas DR, et al. An instrument to measure healing in pressure ulcers: development and validation of the pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M795-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.12.M795
  12. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pressure ulcer prevention and treatment: clinical practice guideline. Washington, DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2009.
  13. Hon J, Lagden K, McLaren AM, et al. A prospective, multicenter study to validate use of the PUSH in patients with diabetic, venous, and pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage 2010;56:26-36.
  14. Pillen H, Miller M, Thomas J, et al. Assessment of wound healing: validity, reliability and sensitivity of available instruments. Wound Pract Res 2009;17:208-17.
  15. Yingsakmongkol N, Maraprygsavan P, Sukosit P. Effect of WF10 (immunokine) on diabetic foot ulcer therapy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Foot Ankle Surg 2011;50:635-40. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2011.05.006
  16. Dharap SB, Ghag GS, Kulkarni KP, et al. Efficacy and safety of oxum in treatment of the venous ulcer. J Indian Med Assoc 2008;106:326, 8-30.

Cited by

  1. Therapy for prevention and treatment of skin ionizing radiation damage: a review vol.95, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2019.1562254