Abstract
Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion (RSDL®) is an FDA-approved skin decontamination kit carried by service members for removal and neutralisation of vesicants and nerve agents. The RSDL kit, comprised of a lotion-impregnated sponge, was shown to be the superior medical decontamination device for chemical warfare agent (CWA) exposure on intact skin. In the event of a chemical exposure situation (i.e. terrorism, battlefield) physical injuries are probable, and preservation of life will outweigh the risk associated with application of RSDL to compromised skin. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate and quality of wound healing in epidermal skin wounds treated with RSDL in a porcine model. Degree of wound healing was assessed using bioengineering methods to include ballistometry, colorimetry, evaporimetry, and high-frequency ultrasonography. Clinical observation, histopathology and immunohistochemistry were also utilised. All pigs received four bilateral superficial abdominal wounds via a pneumatic dermatome on their ventral abdomen, then were treated with the following dressings over a seven-day period: RSDL sponge, petroleum based Xeroform® gauze, 3 M™ Tegaderm™ Film, and 3 M™ Tegaderm™ Foam. Two additional non-wounded sites on the flank were used as controls. Two groups of pigs were then evaluated for a 21- or 56-day time period, representing short- and long-term wound-healing progression. Our findings indicated RSDL had a negative impact on wound-healing progression at both 21 and 56 days post-injury. Wounds receiving RSDL demonstrated a decreased skin elasticity, significant transepidermal water loss, and altered skin colouration and thickness. In addition, the rate of wound healing was delayed, and return to a functional skin barrier was altered when compared to non-RSDL-treated wounds. In conclusion, wound management care and clinical therapeutic intervention plans should be established to account for a prolonged duration of healing in patients with RSDL-contaminated wounds.
Ethical approval
The experimental protocol was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense and all procedures were conducted in accordance with the principles stated in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 2011), and the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89–544), as amended.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to give a special thanks to the USAMRICD Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Department for support of this project.
Disclosure statement
The opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The authors report no conflict of interest.