Use of a biosynthetic cellulose dressing in chronic venous leg ulcer healing: a self-controlled clinical service evaluation study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63676/dqsdnv13Keywords:
leg ulcer, treatment outcome, prospective studiesAbstract
Aims: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Epiprotect, a biosynthetic cellulose (BC) dressing, in promoting healing of chronic venous leg ulcers (VLUs).
Methods: A study at two community wound care centres involved 20 patients who received 4 weeks of standard care, followed by 8 weeks of standard care plus the application of Epiprotect. Outcomes measured included percentage wound area reduction (PWAR), pain, exudate, adherence, and the number of Epiprotect sheets used. Healing was evaluated clinically and via photos, with feedback from staff and patients.
Results: Epiprotect led to consistent and significant improvements. PWAR increased (p=0.046 and p=0.017). By the end, 11 participants had achieved over 75% healing, out of those 8 had achieved over 90%, and 3 had complete closure. Pain scores fell to zero by weeks 10–12 (p<0.01), and exudate levels decreased (p=0.021). Adherence increased to 100% by week 12 (p=0.035), and strong correlations were observed among adherence, healing, and pain reduction (r>0.7, p<0.05). The average number of sheets used per patient was 2.20±1.05. Visual assessment showed better peri-ulcer skin and granulation tissue. Nursing staff found Epiprotect easy to apply and effective, while patients emphasised rapid pain relief and comfort.
Conclusion: This evaluation shows that Epiprotect improves healing, reduces pain and exudate, and enhances adherence in chronic VLUs with minimal dressings. Patients and staff find it suitable for community care. Results support the need for larger trials comparing Epiprotect with standard care and other dressings.
References
Mościcka P, Cwajda‐Białasik J, Jawień A, Jaraczewski W, Szewczyk MT. Evaluation of factors affecting the healing process of venous ulcers: A 12‐week longitudinal study. Wound Repair Regen. 2023;31(6):783-792. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13140 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13140
O'Donnell TF, Passman MA, Marston WA, et al. Management of venous leg ulcers: Clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery® and the American Venous Forum. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(2):3S-59S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2014.04.049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2014.04.049
Guest JF, Vowden K, Vowden P. The health economic burden that acute and chronic wounds impose on an average clinical commissioning group/health board in the UK. J Wound Care. 2017;26(6):292-303. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.6.292 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.6.292
Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P. Venous leg ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes. Int Wound J. 2018;15(1):29-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12814
Scotton MF, Miot HA, Abbade LPF. Factors that influence healing of chronic venous leg ulcers: a retrospective cohort. An Bras Dermatol. 2014;89(3):414-422. https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20142687 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20142687
Stone RC, Stojadinovic O, Rosa AM, et al. A bioengineered living cell construct activates an acute wound healing response in venous leg ulcers. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(371):eaaf8611. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf8611 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf8611
Milic DJ, Zivic SS, Bogdanovic DC, Karanovic ND, Golubovic ZV. Risk factors related to the failure of venous leg ulcers to heal with compression treatment. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49(5):1242-1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.11.069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.11.069
Weller CD, Bouguettaya A, Team V, Flegg J, Kasza J, Jayathilake C. Associations between patient, treatment, or wound‐level factors and venous leg ulcer healing: Wound characteristics are the key factors in determining healing outcomes. Wound Repair Regen. 2020;28(2):211-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12773
He W, Wu J, Xu J, Mosselhy DA, Zheng Y, Yang S. Bacterial Cellulose: Functional Modification and Wound Healing Applications. Adv Wound Care. 2021;10(11):623-640. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2020.1219 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2020.1219
Sulaeva I, Henniges U, Rosenau T, Potthast A. Bacterial cellulose as a material for wound treatment: Properties and modifications. A review. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33(8):1547-1571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.07.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.07.009
Fu L, Zhang J, Yang G. Present status and applications of bacterial cellulose-based materials for skin tissue repair. Carbohydr Polym. 2013;92(2):1432-1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.10.071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.10.071
Portela R, Leal CR, Almeida PL, Sobral RG. Bacterial cellulose: a versatile biopolymer for wound dressing applications. Microb Biotechnol. 2019;12(4):586-610. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13392 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13392
De Amorim JDP, Da Silva Junior CJG, De Medeiros ADM, et al. Bacterial Cellulose as a versatile biomaterial for wound dressing application. Molecules. 2022;27(17):5580. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27175580 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27175580
Park SU, Lee BK, Kim MS, et al. The possibility of microbial cellulose for dressing and scaffold materials. Int Wound J. 2014;11(1):35-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01035.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01035.x
Gohel MS, Windhaber RAJ, Tarlton JF, Whyman MR, Poskitt KR. The relationship between cytokine concentrations and wound healing in chronic venous ulceration. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(5):1272-1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.06.042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.06.042
Beidler SK, Douillet CD, Berndt DF, Keagy BA, Rich PB, Marston WA. Inflammatory cytokine levels in chronic venous insufficiency ulcer tissue before and after compression therapy. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49(4):1013-1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.11.049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.11.049
Tian Y, Stacey MC. Cytokines and growth factors in keratinocytes and sweat glands in chronic venous leg ulcers. An immunohistochemical study. Wound Repair Regen. 2003;11(5):316-325. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-475X.2003.11502.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-475X.2003.11502.x
Stacey MC, Phillips SA, Farrokhyar F, Swaine JM. Evaluation of wound fluid biomarkers to determine healing in adults with venous leg ulcers: A prospective study. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(5):509-518. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12723 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12723
Bergant Suhodolčan A, Luzar B, Kecelj Leskovec N. Matrix metalloproteinase ( MMP )‐1 and MMP ‐2, but not COX‐2 serve as additional predictors for chronic venous ulcer healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2021;29(5):725-731. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12915
Moore K, Hall V, Paull A, et al. Surface bacteriology of venous leg ulcers and healing outcome. J Clin Pathol. 2010;63(9):830-834. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2010.077032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2010.077032
Eskilson O, Lindström SB, Sepulveda B, et al. Self‐Assembly of Mechanoplasmonic Bacterial Cellulose–Metal Nanoparticle Composites. Adv Funct Mater. 2020;30(40):2004766. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202004766 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202004766
Cannon RE, Anderson SM. Biogenesis of Bacterial Cellulose. Crit Rev Microbiol. 1991;17(6):435-447. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408419109115207 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/10408419109115207
Rangaswamy BE, Vanitha KP, Hungund BS. Microbial cellulose production from bacteria isolated from rotten fruit. Int J Polym Sci. 2015;2015:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/280784 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/280784
Karlsson M, Elmasry M, Steinvall I, et al. Biosynthetic cellulose compared to porcine xenograft in the treatment of partial-thickness burns: A randomised clinical trial. Burns. 2022;48(5):1236-1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2021.09.017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2021.09.017
Qureshi MA, Lalwani P, Asad I, et al. Single stage first layer biosynthetic cellulose dressing versus nonadherent gauze management in paediatric burns. Burns Open. 2021;5(4):17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burnso.2021.06.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burnso.2021.06.008
Shanks LA, Cronshaw A, Alexander KS, Davies JA, O'Boyle CP. Evaluation of EpiProtect® microbial cellulose burns dressings in young children. Scars Burns Heal. 2020;6:2059513120940503. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059513120940503 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2059513120940503
Delli Santi G, Borgognone A. The use of Epiprotect®, an advanced wound dressing, to heal paediatric patients with burns: A pilot study. Burns Open. 2019;3(3):103-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burnso.2019.05.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burnso.2019.05.001
Sivlér T, Sivlér P, Skog M, Conti L, Aili D. Treatment of nonhealing ulcers with an allograft/xenograft substitute: a case series. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2018;31(7):306-309. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000534701.57785.cd DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000534701.57785.cd
Alavi A, Sibbald RG, Phillips TJ, et al. What's new: Management of venous leg ulcers. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(4):643-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.03.059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.03.059
Evaluation and Management of Lower-Extremity Ulcers. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(3):301-303. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1715237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1715237
Weber C. Good Clinical Practice. In: Piantadosi S, Meinert CL, eds. Principles and Practice of Clinical Trials. Springer International Publishing; 2021:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52677-5_64-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52677-5_64-1
Nemlander E, Schultz K, Nilsson GH, Lapins J. New technology and working methods to improve healthcare for suspected malignant skin lesions: Implementation of teledermatoscopy in comprehensive healthcare. JEADV Clin Pract. 2024;3(5):1467-1477. https://doi.org/10.1002/jvc2.486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jvc2.486
Fagerström C, Wickström H, Tuvesson H. Still engaged – healthcare staff's engagement when introducing a new eHealth solution for wound management: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07515-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07515-3
Schindelin J, Rueden CT, Hiner MC, Eliceiri KW. The ImageJ ecosystem: An open platform for biomedical image analysis. Mol Reprod Dev. 2015;82(7-8):518-529. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.22489 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.22489
Cardinal M, Eisenbud DE, Phillips T, Harding K. Early healing rates and wound area measurements are reliable predictors of later complete wound closure. Wound Repair Regen. 2008;16(1):19-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00328.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00328.x
Margolis DJ, Kantor J, Santanna J, Strom BL, Berlin JA. Risk factors for delayed healing of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a pooled analysis. Arch Dermatol. 2000;136(12). https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.136.12.1531 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.136.12.1531
Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short‐Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF‐MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form‐36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF‐36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(S11). https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543
A structured approach to the selection of dressings. Part II. Nurs RSA Verpleg RSA. 1994;9(5):10-11.
Ousey K, Cook L. Understanding the importance of holistic wound assessment. Pract Nurs. 2011;22(6):308-314. https://doi.org/10.12968/pnur.2011.22.6.308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/pnur.2011.22.6.308
Eklöf B, Rutherford RB, Bergan JJ, et al. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: Consensus statement. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(6):1248-1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2004.09.027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2004.09.027
Alvarez OM, Phillips TJ, Menzoian JO, Patel M, Andriessen A. An RCT to compare a bio-cellulose wound dressing with a non-adherent dressing in VLUs. J Wound Care. 2012;21(9):448-453. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2012.21.9.448 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2012.21.9.448
Cavalcanti LM, Pinto FCM, Oliveira GMD, Lima SVC, Aguiar JLDA, Lins EM. Efficacy of bacterial cellulose membrane for the treatment of lower limbs chronic varicose ulcers: a randomized and controlled trial. Rev Colégio Bras Cir. 2017;44(1):72-80. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912017001011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912017001011
Dini V, Romanelli M, Andriessen A, et al. Improvement of Periulcer Skin Condition in Venous Leg Ulcer Patients: Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Single-blinded Clinical Trial Comparing a Biosynthetic Cellulose Dressing with a Foam Dressing. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2013;26(8):352-359. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000431237.22658.15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000431237.22658.15
George-Saintilus E, Tommasulo B, Cal CE, et al. Pressure Ulcer PUSH Score and Traditional Nursing Assessment in Nursing Home Residents: Do They Correlate? J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009;10(2):141-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2008.10.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2008.10.014
Bates‐Jensen BM, McCreath HE, Harputlu D, Patlan A. Reliability of the Bates‐Jensen wound assessment tool for pressure injury assessment: The pressure ulcer detection study. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(4):386-395. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12714 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12714
Additional Files
Published
Data Availability Statement
Metadata has been attached as a separate file as supplementary data. Any outputs can be sent upon request.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Tissue Repair
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
