Methods: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included 244 patients, of whom 86 were treated with chitosan derivative film and 84 with hydrocolloid. The percentage of epithelisation, as well as patient comfort, clinical signs, and patient convenience in application and removal of the dressings were assessed.

Results: The primary outcome of this study was the percentage of epithelisation. Except for race (p = 0.04), there were no significant differences between groups in sex, age, antibiotic usage, or initial wound size (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean epithelisation percentage between groups (p = 0.29). Patients using chitosan derivative film experienced more pain during removal of dressing than those in the hydrocolloid group (p = 0.007). The chitosan derivative film group showed less exudate (p = 0.036) and less odour (p = 0.024) than the control group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of adherence, ease of removal, wound drainage, erythema, itchiness, pain, and tenderness. No oedema or localised warmth was observed during the study.

Conclusion: This study concluded that chitosan derivative film is equivalent to hydrocolloid dressing and can be an option in the management of superficial and abrasion wounds.

Case presentation: We experience a 47-year-old lady who developed an unrecognised EVI after being admitted for sepsis. The EVI turned out to be a huge and sloughy skin ulcer. A series of wound debridement with vacuum dressing were conducted until the wound was able to be closed.

Discussion: The EVI can be categorised according to Amjad EVI grading and Loth and Eversmann's EVI classification. Adult EVI tends to be overlooked, especially during critical care because patients cannot complain upon sedation and ventilation. In order to prevent EVI, firstly prevention is better than cure. Secondly, if EVI is recognised early, infusion should be stopped immediately. Thirdly, analgesia is mandatory. Finally, the plastic team needs to be engaged if it is deemed required.

Methods: A total of 110 severe TBI patients, aged 18-60, who underwent emergency brain surgery were randomised into Group T (TCI) (n = 55) and Group S (sevoflurane) (n = 55). Anaesthesia was maintained in Group T with propofol target plasma concentration of 3-6 μg/mL and in Group S with minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane 1.0-1.5. Both groups received TCI remifentanil 2-8 ng/mL for analgesia. After the surgery, patients were managed in the intensive care unit and were followed up until discharge for the outcome parameters.

Results: Demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups. Differences in Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at discharge were not significant between Group T and Group S (P = 0.25): the percentages of mortality (GOS 1) [27.3% versus 16.4%], vegetative and severe disability (GOS 2-3) [29.1% versus 41.8%] and good outcome (GOS 4-5) [43.6% versus 41.8%] were comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in other outcome parameters.

METHODS: Patients (n = 94) scheduled for gynaecological laparotomy received i.v. fentanyl infusion (3 μg/kg/h) after induction of general anaesthesia. Post-operative fentanyl requirements were quantified by using a patient-controlled analgesia and the number of i.v. fentanyl rescue analgesia required were recorded. Pain control was assessed using visual analogue scores (VAS) and fentanyl's adverse effects were documented. CYP3A4*4, CYP3A4*5 and CYP3A4*18 alleles of cytochrome P450 3A4 were identified by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism. Differences in fentanyl requirements, VAS scores and adverse effects among the various genotypes were compared.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: No CYP3A4*4 and CYP3A4*5 alleles were detected. Eighty-nine patients (94·7%) were wild-type, five (5·3%) were heterozygous and none was homozygous. No significant difference was demonstrated between the genotype groups in terms of fentanyl consumption, pain control and adverse effects.