Comparative Efficacy of Hypochlorous Acid and Mafenide Acetate in Reducing Infection Rates in Postoperative Burn Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract Infection is a leading cause of mortality in patients with third-degree burns, contributing to over 75% of burn-related deaths. Despite the widespread use of hypochlorous acid and mafenide acetate as wet dressings in burn care, direct comparisons of their effectiveness are limited. Thus, this study evaluates the relative efficacy of hypochlorous acid and mafenide acetate in managing infections and improving survival outcomes in postoperative burn patients. This retrospective study included adults with second and third-degree burns who underwent excision and grafting between January 2012 – February 2024 at an American Burn Association-verified burn center. Infection, mortality, length of stay, number of operations, and complications were compared across initial antiseptic treatment using chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests. The study cohort comprised 274 patients, the majority of whom sustained flame burns (63.1%), with an average total body surface area burned of 11.2±13.7%. Within the cohort, 88.7% received mafenide acetate and 11.3% hypochlorous acid. Thirteen patients (41.9%) who received hypochlorous acid developed an infection requiring antibiotics, which on average, took 6.85±5.71 days to develop. This was not statistically different from those in the mafenide acetate group, of which 90 patients (37.0%) developed an infection (p=0.5840) which took 6.50±8.47 days to develop (p=0.4436). Mortality was also not significantly different between groups. No significant differences were found between hypochlorous acid and mafenide acetate in infection, mortality, or morbidity outcomes. Both treatments are viable antiseptic options for postoperative burn care, and clinicians can be flexible in choosing either treatment based on patient needs, cost, or availability without compromising care quality.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Burn Care & Research
Published
2026-05-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irag080
Primary Topic
Wound Healing and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Efficacy of Hypochlorous Acid and Mafenide Acetate in Reducing Infection Rates in Postoperative Burn Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Jenny Ziembicki, José Antonio Arellano, Francesco M. Egro, Garth Elias et al.
Journal of Burn Care & Research
Wound Healing and Treatments
article

Comparative Efficacy of Hypochlorous Acid and Mafenide Acetate in Reducing Infection Rates in Postoperative Burn Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Jenny Ziembicki, José Antonio Arellano, Francesco M. Egro, Garth Elias, A Corcos, Christopher Fedor, Omar Zein, Mia J Carrarini, M H Yassin, Hilary Y Liu
article en

Abstract

Abstract Infection is a leading cause of mortality in patients with third-degree burns, contributing to over 75% of burn-related deaths. Despite the widespread use of hypochlorous acid and mafenide acetate as wet dressings in burn care, direct comparisons of their effectiveness are limited. Thus, this study evaluates the relative efficacy of hypochlorous acid and mafenide acetate in managing infections and improving survival outcomes in postoperative burn patients. This retrospective study included adults with second and third-degree burns who underwent excision and grafting between January 2012 – February 2024 at an American Burn Association-verified burn center. Infection, mortality, length of stay, number of operations, and complications were compared across initial antiseptic treatment using chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests. The study cohort comprised 274 patients, the majority of whom sustained flame burns (63.1%), with an average total body surface area burned of 11.2±13.7%. Within the cohort, 88.7% received mafenide acetate and 11.3% hypochlorous acid. Thirteen patients (41.9%) who received hypochlorous acid developed an infection requiring antibiotics, which on average, took 6.85±5.71 days to develop. This was not statistically different from those in the mafenide acetate group, of which 90 patients (37.0%) developed an infection (p=0.5840) which took 6.50±8.47 days to develop (p=0.4436). Mortality was also not significantly different between groups. No significant differences were found between hypochlorous acid and mafenide acetate in infection, mortality, or morbidity outcomes. Both treatments are viable antiseptic options for postoperative burn care, and clinicians can be flexible in choosing either treatment based on patient needs, cost, or availability without compromising care quality.

Journal of Burn Care & Research
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Wound Healing and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.