Table 1.
Wound area reduction from visits 0–5 in different treatment armsa
| Visit | n | Wound area median (min, max) | Reduction V0–V5 (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment arm 1 – wound‐phase‐adapted dressing | ||||
| 0 | 15 | 4·1 (1·3, 76·2) | ||
| 1 | 15 | 4·1 (1·3, 74·5) | ||
| 3 | 15 | 4·1 (0·8, 71·1) | ||
| 5 | 15 | 3·5 (0·3, 63·4) | 14·6% | |
| Treatment arm 2 – octenidine + wound‐phase‐adapted dressing | ||||
| 0 | 14 | 10·3 (1·3, 91·5) | ||
| 1 | 14 | 9·6 (1·0, 91·4) | ||
| 3 | 14 | 6·7 (0·2, 27·1) | ||
| 5 | 14 | 3·7 (0·0, 11·7) | 64·1% | |
| Treatment arm 3 – octenidine alone | ||||
| 0 | 15 | 5·3 (0·8, 24·9) | ||
| 1 | 14 | 3·6 (0·8, 22·8) | ||
| 3 | 15 | 2·3 (0·0, 29·6) | ||
| 5 | 15 | 0·2 (0·0, 17·7) | 96·2% | |
V, visit.
a
Significance of values in bold: Arm 1 vs. arm 2, P = 0.028; arm 1 vs. arm 3, P = 0.028; arm 2 vs. arm 3, P = 0.845.