Social and economic efficiency of a new method for treating skin burns in infants and young children using bioplastic material

Objective. To evaluate the social and economic effectiveness of introducing a new method for treating skin burns in infants and early childhood using bioplastic material.
Materials and methods. A comparative analysis of treatment outcomes was conducted for 48 patients treated for mosaic skin burns between 2017 and 2020. The study group consisted of bioplastic materials in various forms (gel, powder, membrane) and hydrocolloid dressings; the control group consisted of hydrocolloid dressings. Social satisfaction and cost-effectiveness were assessed depending on the treatment method.
Results. The calculated indicators of the coefficients of social satisfaction and medical effectiveness during the introduction into clinical practice of a new method for treating skin burns in infants and early childhood using all forms of bioplastic material (7 % gel, powder, membrane) amounted to 1.0 and exceeded the values in the control group of the study when using only hydrocolloid dressings with a level of 0.75 and 0.56, respectively. The cost per unit of surgical avoidance benefit from using bioplastic material is 2.1 times lower than with traditional treatment. The direct economic benefit of using type I collagen is achieved by reducing the length of hospital stay and amounts to BYN 1,158.8 per patient, with the overall economic benefit of clinical application of the new treatment method amounting to BYN 37,081.6.
Conclusion. The developed method for treating thermal skin burns in infants and young children with a burn wound area of no more than 1.5 % of the total body surface area and deep burn areas (classified as grade III burns according to ICD-10) no larger than 2 cm2 is not only clinically effective but also has a positive socioeconomic impact.

1. Opriessnig E., Luze H., Smolle C., et al. Epidemiology of burn injury and the ideal dressing in global burn care – Regional differences explored. Burns. 2023; 49(1): 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2022.06.018.

2. Van de Warenburg M. S. Teeuwen B., Hummelink S., et al. Does the dressing matter in pediatric partial-thickness burns. Burns. 2025; 51(4): 107428. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2025.107428.

3. Petrova K.S., Nemirova S.V., Ryabkov M.G., et al. Instrumental non-invasive diagnostics of the depth of burn to the skin: current opportunities and unsolved problems. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Surgery. 2021; 14(1): 75–84. doi: 10.18499/2070-478X-2021-14-1-75-84. (in Russian)

4. Altınok V., Yalçı O., Aycenk A. K., et al. Decision making in pediatric burn management without a burn center: a four-year retrospective analysis of 520 patients. Research square. BMC Pediatrics. 2026; 26 (204): 1–7. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7931564/v1.

5. Maxey J., Wampler M., Elkady D., et al. Minimally invasive excision combined with epidermal autografting and poly-lactic acid skin substitute improves outcomes in pediatric partial thickness burns. J Pediatr Surg Open. 2025; 11: 100215. doi: 10.1016/j.yjpso.2025.100215.

6. Chinese Burn Association. Expert consensus on the management of deep partial-thickness burn wounds in pediatric patients (2023 version) // Chinese J Burns Wound Repair. 2023; 39(10): 901–910. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20230730-00026.

7. Nguyen A. T., Chikoti R., Bell D. Polylactic acid skin substitute in Pediatric burn management. J Burn Care Res. 2026; 47(1): 236–245. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/iraf143.

8. Vimercati S., Selmin F., Marcellusi A., et al. Oxygen-enriched olive-oil dressing in moderate-degree pediatric burns: impact on care and budget over a 4-year period in a tertiary children's hospital. Eur Burn J. 2026; 7(1): 8. doi: 10.3390/ebj7010008.

9. Chang P.H., Shon C. Pain for burn patients and their pocketbooks: the financial toxicity of outpatient burn wound care. J Burn Care Res. 2026; 47(1): S330. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irag033.380.

10. DeVault A. E., Khandelwal A., Mapes A. R. 616. Beyond the burn: the social drivers and cost of extended hospitalization in burn care. J Burn Care Res. 2026; 47(1): S373. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irag033.430.

11. Melkonyan K. I. Asyakina A.S., Rusinova T.V., et al. Influence of the matricellular protein tenascin-C on the functional activity of fibroblasts in an experimental model of injury in vitro. Biomedical Chemistry: Research and Methods. 2025; 8(3). doi: 10.18097/bmcrm00286 (in Russian).

12. Maksimova N. V., Yu. A. Krstich, V. A. Stupin. The pharmacoeconomic analysis of collost bioplastic material in patients with diabetic foot. Medicinskie tehnologii. Ocenka i vybor. 2017; 1(27): 59–66. (in Russian).

13. Maiborodin I.V., Beregovoy Ye.A., Shevela A.I., et al. Morphological tissue changes after the implantation of a biodegradable material on collagen basis. Morfologija. 2013; 144(6): 063–068. (in Russian).

14. Lindenbraten A.L. Zvolinskaja V.N., Golodnenko R.M. Evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of healthcare facilities: Methodological materials. – Moscow : NIISGJEUZ; 1999. 78. (in Russian).

15. Iagudina R.I., Serpik V.G., Sorokovikov I.V. Methodological foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. Farmakoekonomika: teoriia i praktika. 2014; 2(2): 23–26. (in Russian).

16. Hlutkin A.V., Vakulchyk V.G. Assessment of post-burn wounds in children after using bioplastic collagen material. Zhurnal Grodnenskogo gosudarstvennogo medicinskogo universiteta. 2020; 18(3): 309–314. doi: 10.25298/2221-8785-2020-18-3-309-314. (in Russian).