Enzymatic debridement (bromelain and related proteolytic enzymes)

Overview

Enzymatic debridement is the topical application of proteolytic enzymes to selectively digest necrotic burn eschar while sparing viable underlying dermis. The clinical rationale rests on the depth-conversion problem: traditional tangential surgical excision removes eschar effectively but is mechanically nonselective, sacrifices some viable dermis, and produces meaningful blood loss in deep burns ^[4]. Enzymatic agents target denatured collagen and devitalized matrix preferentially, theoretically allowing more dermis to survive and reducing the need for autograft. The modern era of enzymatic debridement traces to the 2012 European Medicines Agency approval of NexoBrid, a pineapple-stem-derived bromelain concentrate ^[5]; the US-approved formulation anacaulase-bcdb received FDA approval in 2023 ^[23]. By 2023 (review window 2013-2023), over 10,000 patients had been successfully treated with NexoBrid globally, including in the US ^[5].

Three enzymatic agents currently dominate practice. Bromelain-based debridement (NexoBrid; the US-approved formulation anacaulase-bcdb received FDA approval in 2023 ^[23]) is best indicated for mid-to-deep dermal burns with mixed patterns per the European consensus ^[2], and is applied as a single 4-hour topical application in the porcine evidence base ^[14]. Clostridial collagenase ointment (Santyl, also marketed as Iruxol Mono and CCO) is a debriding agent that lacks antimicrobial activity and is recommended for case-by-case use, balancing cost against the potential to manage burns nonoperatively ^[15][18]. Papain-urea formulations and the older sutilain (Travase) preparations have been largely withdrawn or supplanted; the Travase experience from 1972 to 1975 in 463 burn patients showed earlier grafting and shorter length of stay ^[21] but the agent is no longer commercially available in most jurisdictions.

The clinical question on rounds is rarely "should we debride enzymatically" — it is "for which burn, with which agent, when, and what comes next." The strongest signals come from the DETECT phase 3 RCT, which randomized 175 adults with deep burns covering 3-30% TBSA ^[1], from a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of seven studies and 484 participants ^[4], and from the Italian National Burn Database analysis of 2238 patients treated 2018-2024 ^[6]. Each provides a different lens on the same finding: enzymatic debridement removes eschar faster than surgery, reduces excisional surgery and blood loss, and does not compromise scar quality at one to two years. The opposing signal — that real-world series still report substantial subsequent grafting needs and an unforgiving learning curve — is honest, recurring, and unresolved ^[13].

Pathophysiology

Bromelain is a mixture of cysteine proteases extracted from the stem of Ananas comosus; the NexoBrid concentrate combines several proteolytic fractions that together digest the denatured collagen and matrix of burn eschar ^[5]. The selectivity is biochemical: viable dermis presents intact native collagen architecture and surface proteins that resist the enzyme mixture, while necrotic eschar exposes denatured collagen that is accessible to digestion. In a porcine comb-burn model, a single 4-hour topical application of bromelain-derived Debrase produced complete eschar dissolution where the keratin layer was first removed, with the residual dermis thinner but viable; the unburned interspaces under bromelain showed partial-thickness necrosis in two-thirds and full-thickness necrosis in one-third of wounds, compared with full-thickness necrosis in all topical-vehicle-plus-silver-sulfadiazine control interspaces (P=0.05) ^[14].

Clostridial collagenase digests native and denatured collagen in necrotic tissue and accelerates eschar separation ^[19]. In a porcine burn model, collagenase reduced necrosis (HMGB1) and apoptosis (CC3a) early after burn injury, allowed greater cellular infiltration, and produced macrophage polarization to MHC II indicative of a pro-resolving macrophage environment ^[17]. A clinical mechanism difference between the two agents is antimicrobial activity: collagenase ointment cleaves denatured collagen but has no antibacterial properties ^[18].

Classification

Enzymatic debriding agents in contemporary burn practice fall into three currently-available classes plus a legacy class no longer in use.

Bromelain-based debridement (NexoBrid, anacaulase-bcdb). Pineapple-stem-derived bromelain concentrate of proteolytic enzymes received European Medicines Agency approval for adult deep burns in 2012 ^[5]; the US-approved formulation anacaulase-bcdb received FDA approval in 2023 ^[23]. Best indicated for mid-to-deep dermal burns with mixed patterns per the European consensus ^[2]; applied as a single 4-hour topical application in the porcine evidence base ^[14]. Total treatable area capped per session per the European consensus ^[2].

Clostridial collagenase ointment (Santyl, Iruxol Mono, CCO). Cleaves denatured collagen and lacks antimicrobial activity ^[18]. The 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis identified case-by-case use, balancing cost against the potential to manage burns nonoperatively ^[15].

Selective papain and other proteolytic agents. Papain-urea formulations and contemporary investigational agents based on actinidain (kiwifruit) and subtilisins. Limited current burn-specific evidence in the canon supports routine use.

Legacy agents (sutilains). Travase (sutilains) was used in 463 burn patients at one US center from 1972 to 1975 with earlier grafting and shorter hospital stay than historical controls ^[21]. The agent is no longer commercially available in most jurisdictions and is included for historical context.

Assessment

Selection for enzymatic debridement begins with depth determination and burn pattern. The European consensus guidelines, originally published in 2017 ^[3] and updated in 2020 from a 12-center expert panel covering 1232 patient cases ^[2], identify mid-to-deep dermal burns and mixed-depth patterns as the best indication. Forty-three statements covering indications, anesthesia, timing, technique, and after-intervention care reached consensus in 42 of 43, including a stratification by timing of application: immediate or very early (≤12 hours), early (12-72 hours), or delayed (>72 hours) ^[2]. A questionnaire-based study of five Polish burn centers in 2022 reproduced 23 of 24 European consensus statements at 100% agreement, supporting the international generalizability of the framework ^[30].

Patient-level factors that bear on candidacy include burn site (face, hand, perineum, and circumferential limb burns are explicit indications), TBSA (treatable area capped per session per the consensus), and inotrope dependence at presentation, which has been associated with NexoBrid failure in a UK tertiary series ^[11]. A Laser Doppler Imaging adjunct can refine depth determination prior to NexoBrid application and may improve patient selection.

Management

Bromelain-based debridement (NexoBrid)

Bromelain-based debridement is the most extensively studied enzymatic option in burns. The DETECT phase 3 multicenter RCT randomized adults with deep burns covering 3-30% TBSA in a 3:3:1 ratio to NexoBrid (n=75), surgical or nonsurgical standard of care (n=75), or placebo gel vehicle (n=25) ^[1]. Complete eschar removal was achieved in 93% of the NexoBrid arm versus 4% of the gel-vehicle arm (P<0.001) ^[1]. The need for surgical excision was reduced from 72% in the standard-of-care arm to 4% in the NexoBrid arm (P<0.001), median time to eschar removal was 1.0 versus 3.8 days (P<0.001), and blood loss during eschar removal was 14 ± 512 mL with NexoBrid versus 814 ± 1020 mL with surgical standard of care (P<0.0001) ^[1]. Modified Vancouver Scar Scale scores at 12 and 24 months were non-inferior between groups ^[1].

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of seven studies including 484 participants pooled the bromelain-versus-surgical-standard-of-care comparison ^[4]. Bromelain reduced time to eschar removal by a mean of 7.60 days (95% CI -9.76 to -5.44; I² = 70%), reduced the risk of surgical excision (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.47; I² = 79%), and reduced the need for autografts (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.93; I² = 76%) ^[4]. Time to wound closure and Modified Vancouver Scar Scale scores did not differ significantly between groups ^[4]. The 2023 Shoham et al. systematic review of 34 eligible studies covering more than 10,000 globally treated patients reported faster debridement and healing times, fewer operations, shorter length of stay, fewer cases of sepsis, fewer blood transfusions, and prevention of compartment syndrome under high-quality protocols ^[5].

The Italian National Burn Database analyzed 2238 patients treated between 2018 and 2024 ^[6]. Enzymatic debridement was independently associated with a significant reduction in escharotomy (OR 0.47, P<0.001), reinforcing its role in circumferential burns at risk of compartment syndrome ^[6]. NexoBrid did not negatively affect survival compared with standard surgical treatment, though NexoBrid-treated patients had a higher likelihood of undergoing skin grafting and required more procedures overall, potentially reflecting the planned reconstructive care that follows enzymatic debridement ^[6]. Length of stay did not differ between treatment groups ^[6].

Clostridial collagenase ointment (Santyl, CCO)

Clostridial collagenase ointment is most often used on partial-thickness burns where slower eschar separation is acceptable and a daily-dressing approach fits the care setting. A 1995 multicenter trial of 79 patients with partial-thickness wounds compared collagenase ointment plus polymyxin B sulfate/bacitracin powder against silver sulfadiazine cream ^[19]. Collagenase sites cleaned in 9.3 days versus 11.6 days for silver sulfadiazine, and healed in 19 versus 22.1 days ^[19]. A 2024 prospective trial of 170 patients with deep second-degree burns found that collagenase shortened time to necrotic-tissue removal from 10 to 5 days (P<0.01) compared with silver sulfadiazine, with comparable median wound healing time of 10 days versus 10.5 days (P=0.16) ^[16]. The 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that collagenase ointment is more expensive than traditional wound care products but may help halt burn-depth conversion and prevent the need for surgery on a case-by-case basis ^[15].

In pediatric partial-thickness burns, a 2012 prospective randomized trial of 100 children found no differences in clinical course, outcome, or need for skin grafting between silver sulfadiazine and collagenase ointment, and a non-significant trend toward more wound infections in the collagenase arm (7 vs 1; P=0.06) ^[18]. A 2002 series of 78 pediatric burn patients treated with collagenase clostridiopeptidase A reported total eschar removal in 62.8% with collagenase alone, no significant difference in time to a clean wound bed compared with surgical excision, and the shortest hospital stay among the three treatment arms ^[20].

Anacaulase-bcdb

Anacaulase-bcdb is the bromelain formulation approved by the US FDA in 2023 ^[23]. A real-world matched-pair series of 13 anacaulase-bcdb-treated patients reported successful eschar removal in 12 (92%) when used before day 3 with regional anesthesia in all but two cases ^[23]. Time to first surgery from admission was shorter (4 vs 6 days, P=0.017) and average maximum wound-care pain scores during the first 5 days were higher in the enzymatic arm; length of stay, area grafted, total opioids and benzodiazepines, and sedation scores did not differ ^[23].

Application protocol

The European consensus describes a multi-stage protocol for bromelain-based debridement covering preparation, application, and post-intervention care ^[3][2]; the porcine evidence base for the application phase rests on a single 4-hour topical application after removal of the keratin layer ^[14]. Source ^[10] recommends regional anesthesia at the bedside as the method of choice for pain management during NexoBrid procedures: in one single-center series, 29 of 43 adult patients (67%) treated under regional anesthesia had low pain levels without adverse events, and the pediatric subgroup using regional anesthesia had a 22.5-day decrease in time to wound closure compared with general anesthesia (P=0.021) ^[10].

The classical protocol has been challenged by a 2026 fast-track variant. A retrospective matched-pair analysis of seven patient pairs (n=14) compared a fast-track protocol omitting the prolonged pre-soaking against the standard protocol, with median time from injury to enzymatic debridement of 6 versus 26 hours ^[25]. Adequate enzymatic debridement was achieved in all treated wounds in both groups, and no wound infections or early safety signals were observed in the fast-track arm ^[25].

Pretreatment chemistry

Antiseptic agents commonly used in burn wound preparation can inhibit bromelain activity and undermine the debridement. In an in vitro study, a 50% concentration of Prontosan or a 10% concentration of Octenisept impacted the enzymatic activity of low-concentration NexoBrid; copper at 100 µmol/L inhibited both low- and high-concentration NexoBrid; silver sulfadiazine at 10% and 90% concentrations inhibited 1 mg/ml NexoBrid activity ^[32]. The European consensus addresses pretreatment chemistry in its application protocol; the in vitro inhibition data document that exposure to these antiseptics compromises subsequent bromelain activity ^[2][32].

Complications

Three complication classes recur in the bromelain literature: pain, bacteremia and infection, and coagulation effects.

Pain. Pain associated with surgical or enzymatic burn wound debridement prevents many burn centers from working outside an operating theater ^[10]. Regional anesthesia administered outside the operating room achieves low pain scores without adverse events in most patients across pediatric and adult cohorts ^[10]. The anacaulase-bcdb real-world series did report higher average maximum wound-care pain scores during the first 5 days versus matched surgical controls despite regional anesthesia in all but two cases ^[23], indicating pain remains a load-bearing operational concern.

Bacteremia and wound infection. A 2024 retrospective cohort of 269 patients (median TBSA 19%) examined bacteremia after bromelain treatment ^[8]. First bacteremia occurred in 61 patients (23%) at a median of 6 days, with 22 of 83 bromelain-treated patients (27%) developing bacteremia; in the fully adjusted competing-risk regression model, no association between bromelain treatment and bacteremia was found (subhazard ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.42-1.48, P=0.47), and mortality did not differ (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.26-1.20, P=0.14) ^[8]. A separate microbial-profile study of NexoBrid-treated wounds found that the bacterial colonization pattern resembles untreated burn wounds, with Gram-positive predominance in week one and Gram-negative predominance in week two ^[9].

Coagulation effects. A 2023 study of 132 patients (mean TBSA 17%; 66 enzymatic, 66 surgical) measured coagulation parameters over the first seven days after admission ^[22]. Patients receiving enzymatic debridement showed significantly higher factor V concentrations over the first seven days (P<0.01); INR, aPTT, fibrinogen, factor XIII, and platelet concentrations did not differ between groups ^[22]. Enzymatic debridement in burn patients does not appear to increase the risk of coagulation abnormalities compared with surgical debridement ^[22].

The 2023 Shoham et al. systematic review of 34 studies addressed two recurring concerns — coagulopathy and burn wound infection — and reported no strong evidence of either adverse effect class ^[5].

Special Considerations

Hand burns

Hand burns receive disproportionate attention in the enzymatic debridement literature because the hand is anatomically intolerant of nonselective tissue loss. A 2026 systematic review identified seven eligible studies (four surgical, three enzymatic) using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH/Quick-DASH) and Modified Michigan Hand Questionnaire as functional outcomes ^[24]. Functional recovery was generally better in cases where enzymatic debridement preserved viable dermis and avoided grafting; DASH and Modified Michigan Hand Questionnaire scores favored enzymatic approaches, especially when conservative management followed debridement ^[24]. A 2024 long-term evaluation of 31 hand burns in 31 patients treated with enzymatic debridement found no significant differences from untreated skin in flexibility, transepidermal water loss, pigmentation, or skin surface at 12 months, with significantly superior scarring versus a traditional surgical-debridement control ^[28]. Treated wounds still exhibited significantly increased blood circulation and erythema compared to the untreated areas at 12 months ^[28].

Pediatric burns

The pediatric NexoBrid evidence base now includes a multicenter open-label RCT at 36 burn centers (Europe, US, Israel, India) randomizing 145 children with deep thermal burns to bromelain-based debridement (n=72) or standard of care (n=73) ^[7]. All three primary endpoints were met: median time to complete eschar removal was 1 versus 6 days (P<0.001); the mean percentage of wound area surgically excised was 1.5% versus 48.1% (P<0.001); and 12-month Modified Vancouver Scar Scale scores were non-inferior at 3.8 versus 4.9 (P<0.001 for non-inferiority) ^[7]. Bromelain-based debridement led to shorter time to complete eschar removal, reduced excisional surgery, and non-inferior 12-month cosmesis and function results in children ^[7]. Pain control with regional anesthesia outside the operating room was effective in pediatric subgroups in single-center series and decreased time to wound closure by 22.5 days compared with general anesthesia (P=0.021) ^[10].

Special populations: COPD and home oxygen therapy

Enzymatic debridement of facial full-thickness burns in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and home oxygen therapy has been described in a small case series of three patients, where analgosedation without intubation enabled treatment in a population at high risk of prolonged weaning and tracheostomy after intubation ^[29]. This is a small but distinct evidence pocket relevant to a vulnerable population.

Off-label and extended applications

A 2020 retrospective review of 33 off-label NexoBrid uses (beyond the manufacturer's guidelines) reported successful eschar debridement in 25 patients (76%), with the off-label uses including late-presentation burns more than 48 hours from injury, pediatric cases at the time outside the labeled population, chemical and electrical burns, and hard-to-heal full-thickness wounds ^[12]. Sixteen patients required further surgery after enzymatic debridement ^[12].

Mass casualty contexts

The 2023 Armenian burn mass casualty incident from an explosion in Nagorno-Karabakh produced more than 220 deaths and required hospitalization of more than 200 patients across five centers in Yerevan ^[31]. Israeli mission teams performed 42 surgeries in four days including debridement, dressing changes, and reconstructions with skin grafts and dermal substitutes ^[31]. The case illustrates the operational role of enzymatic debridement in a mass-casualty context where surgical-OR throughput is the rate-limiting step.

Outcomes

The most consistent outcome signal across the bromelain literature is faster eschar removal and reduced surgical burden. The DETECT RCT documented 93% versus 4% complete eschar removal at the planned timepoint and a 72% to 4% reduction in surgical excision ^[1]; the 2025 meta-analysis confirmed a mean 7.60-day reduction in time to eschar removal, a relative risk of 0.17 for surgical excision, and a relative risk of 0.40 for autograft need ^[4]. Long-term scar quality is comparable or non-inferior to surgical care: 12- and 24-month Modified Vancouver Scar Scale scores did not differ in DETECT ^[1]; 12-month MVSS scores were non-inferior in the pediatric multicenter RCT ^[7]; meta-analysis pooled MVSS at -0.36 points (95% CI -0.96 to 0.23) ^[4]; and a 2026 long-term follow-up comparing Suprathel and Jelonet dressings after enzymatic debridement found favorable and comparable scar outcomes over 12 months with subtle differences in transepidermal water loss and pigmentation ^[27].

Hospital length of stay and total operations show a more complex picture. The Italian National Burn Database found no significant difference in length of stay between treatment groups, with NexoBrid patients more likely to undergo subsequent grafting and to require more procedures overall ^[6]. The Italian implementation series at a major burn center (n=30) reported only 10% of NexoBrid patients did not require further surgical intervention, with over 80% requiring additional surgery and a 10% mortality from systemic complications ^[13]. In a pediatric collagenase series, treatment with collagenase clostridiopeptidase A produced the shortest hospital stay among three groups (12.5 days, P<0.01), reduced the need for blood transfusion (one patient required transfusion), and reduced the overall need for surgery in partial-thickness burns ^[20].

Hypertrophic scarring outcomes in intermediate-depth burns were addressed in a 2026 prospective study of 87 regions of interest in 62 patients (44 conservative, 43 enzymatic) ^[26]. Hypertrophic scarring at 12 months was 13.6% in the conservative group versus 9.3% in the enzymatic group, a non-significant difference; hypertrophic scarring correlated with wound closure time, while no significant difference between treatment modalities was observed ^[26]. The authors of that study concluded that conservative management remained appropriate as the standard for intermediate-depth burns ^[26].

Controversies and Evidence Gaps

Several controversies remain unsettled.

Enzymatic debridement as adjunct versus replacement for surgery. A 2021 UK tertiary series of 20 patients reported NexoBrid succeeded in 55% of patients but 60% of all patients still required further surgery (80% of facial burns) ^[11]; the authors concluded that current evidence cannot justify replacing surgical standard of care with NexoBrid but supports its role as a useful adjunct ^[11]. A 2024 Italian implementation series at a major burn center (n=30) reported only 10% of NexoBrid patients did not require further surgical intervention, with over 80% requiring additional surgery ^[13]. The DETECT RCT, by contrast, reported only 4% of NexoBrid patients required surgical excision ^[1]; the gap between trial protocol-driven outcomes and real-world implementation outcomes is large and unresolved.

Pretreatment-chemistry incompatibility. Antiseptic pretreatment with Prontosan, Octenisept, or copper-containing products inhibits bromelain activity in vitro ^[32]. The protocol implications are captured in the European consensus, but real-world adherence to the prescribed pretreatment chemistry is not well documented and may explain a portion of the variance in enzymatic-debridement success rates.

Fast-track versus standard timing protocol. The 2026 fast-track variant omitting prolonged pre-soaking demonstrated adequate eschar removal and no early safety signals in seven matched pairs ^[25], but the sample size is small and the trade-offs at scale are not yet defined.

Hypertrophic-scarring claim in intermediate-depth burns. The 2026 prospective study found no significant difference in hypertrophic scarring at 12 months between conservative and enzymatic management of intermediate-depth burns; the dominant correlate of hypertrophic scarring was wound closure time, not treatment modality ^[26]. The implication for the wider claim that enzymatic debridement reduces long-term scarring through dermal preservation is unsettled in this depth stratum.

Collagenase indication-stratification. The 2024 Xie et al. trial reported that the indications for collagenase ointment are not clearly established in deep second-degree burn treatment ^[16]. Across the contemporary collagenase literature there is meaningful between-study heterogeneity in patient selection, and the case for routine collagenase use over silver sulfadiazine in pediatric partial-thickness burns is unsettled ^[18].

Cost-effectiveness. Bromelain-based debridement and collagenase ointment are both more expensive than traditional wound-care products on a unit-cost basis. The 2019 collagenase systematic review noted that the higher cost may be offset by the ability to manage burns nonoperatively ^[15]; comparable health-economic data for NexoBrid are sparser. The Italian National Burn Database finding that NexoBrid patients required more procedures overall complicates a simple direct-cost comparison ^[6].

Anacaulase-bcdb real-world performance. The first published anacaulase-bcdb real-world series included only 13 patients ^[23]. Larger series will be needed to confirm whether the DETECT RCT findings generalize to the FDA-approved formulation in routine US burn-center practice.

References

[1] Shoham Y, Rosenberg L, Hickerson W, et al.. "Early Enzymatic Burn Debridement: Results of the DETECT Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial." J Burn Care Res 2024. PMID: 37715999. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37715999/

[2] Hirche C, Kreken Almeland S, Dheansa B, et al.. "Eschar removal by bromelain based enzymatic debridement (Nexobrid®) in burns: European consensus guidelines update." Burns 2020. PMID: 32241591. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32241591/

[3] Hirche C, Citterio A, Hoeksema H, et al.. "Eschar removal by bromelain based enzymatic debridement (Nexobrid(®)) in burns: An European consensus." Burns 2017. PMID: 29033046. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29033046/

[4] De Freitas LR, Udoma-Udofa OC, Reginato PH, Mitsui HC, Provinciatto H, Torres FC. "Bromelain-Based Enzymatic Debridement Versus Standard of Care in Deep Burn Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." J Burn Care Res 2025. PMID: 39259807. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39259807/

[5] Shoham Y, Gasteratos K, Singer AJ, Krieger Y, Silberstein E, Goverman J. "Bromelain-based enzymatic burn debridement: A systematic review of clinical studies on patient safety, efficacy and long-term outcomes." Int Wound J 2023. PMID: 37455553. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37455553/

[6] Marchica P, Ranno R, D'Alessio R, et al.. "Clinical outcomes of bromelain-based enzymatic debridement (NexoBrid®): evidence from the Italian National Burn Database." Burns 2026. PMID: 41707536. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41707536/

[7] Shoham Y, Rosenberg L, Narayan RP, et al.. "Open label randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of NexoBrid compared to standard of care in children with burns." Burns 2025. PMID: 40117996. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40117996/

[8] Deplazes BC, Hofmaenner DA, Scheier TC, et al.. "Enzymatic debridement with bromelain and development of bacteremia in burn injuries: A retrospective cohort study." Burns 2024. PMID: 38182450. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38182450/

[9] Sharaf A, Muthayya P. "Microbial profile of burn wounds managed with enzymatic debridement using bromelain-based agent, NexoBrid®." Burns 2022. PMID: 34973852. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34973852/

[10] Claes KEY, Amar S, Hoeksema H, et al.. "Pain management during a bromelain-based selective enzymatic debridement in paediatric and adult burn patients." Burns 2022. PMID: 34686390. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34686390/

[11] Arkoulis N, Mabvuure NT, Smith A, Barnes DE. "Early experiences using bromelain-based enzymatic debridement in a tertiary burns centre in the United Kingdom: A retrospective case series review." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021. PMID: 33388270. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33388270/

[12] Harats M, Haik J, Cleary M, Vashurin I, Aviv U, Kornhaber R. "A Retrospective Review of an Off-label Bromelain-based Selective Enzymatic Debridement (Nexobrid®) in the Treatment of Deep, Partial, and Full Thickness Burns and Hard to Heal Wounds." Isr Med Assoc J 2020. PMID: 32043324. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32043324/

[13] Lombardo GAG, Ciancio F, Violini H, et al.. "Implementing Nexobrid for Burn Debridement in a Major Italian Burn Center: A Retrospective Review of Patient Outcomes." J Burn Care Res 2024. PMID: 37897805. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37897805/

[14] Singer AJ, McClain SA, Taira BR, Rooney J, Steinhauff N, Rosenberg L. "Rapid and selective enzymatic debridement of porcine comb burns with bromelain-derived Debrase: acute-phase preservation of noninjured tissue and zone of stasis." J Burn Care Res 2010. PMID: 20182376. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20182376/

[15] Pham CH, Collier ZJ, Fang M, Howell A, Gillenwater TJ. "The role of collagenase ointment in acute burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis." J Wound Care 2019. PMID: 30767636. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30767636/

[16] Xie S, Han J, Xie W, et al.. "Comparing collagenase and silver sulfadiazine in deep second-degree burn treatment." Arch Dermatol Res 2024. PMID: 38904701. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38904701/

[17] Frederick RE, Bearden R, Jovanovic A, Jacobson N, Sood R, Dhall S. "Clostridium Collagenase Impact on Zone of Stasis Stabilization and Transition to Healthy Tissue in Burns." Int J Mol Sci 2021. PMID: 34445347. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34445347/

[18] Ostlie DJ, Juang D, Aguayo P, et al.. "Topical silver sulfadiazine vs collagenase ointment for the treatment of partial thickness burns in children: a prospective randomized trial." J Pediatr Surg 2012. PMID: 22703794. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22703794/

[19] Hansbrough JF, Achauer B, Dawson J, et al.. "Wound healing in partial-thickness burn wounds treated with collagenase ointment versus silver sulfadiazine cream." J Burn Care Rehabil 1995. PMID: 7673302. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7673302/

[20] Ozcan C, Ergün O, Celik A, Cördük N, Ozok G. "Enzymatic debridement of burn wound with collagenase in children with partial-thickness burns." Burns 2002. PMID: 12464480. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12464480/

[21] Dimick AR. "Experience with the use of proteolytic enzyme (Travase) in burn patients." J Trauma 1977. PMID: 338928. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/338928/

[22] Pfister P, Garcia Wendel PD, Kim BS, et al.. "Coagulation side effects of enzymatic debridement in burned patients." Burns 2023. PMID: 36566096. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36566096/

[23] Gibson CJ, Mueller SW, Dorgan EA, Endorf FW, Halevi AE, Wiktor AJ. "Real-World Experience of Anacaulase-bcdb Debridement in Burns." J Burn Care Res 2026. PMID: 41208022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41208022/

[24] de la Cruz Santos P, Vázquez OS, Ortiz-Huerta JH, Santamaría-Vázquez M. "Assessing Hand Function Post-Burn: A Systematic Review of Surgical vs. Enzymatic Debridement Using DASH/Quick-DASH and MHQ Questionnaires." Int Wound J 2026. PMID: 41882984. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41882984/

[25] Schmidt SV, Drysch M, Hinzmann J, et al.. "Fast-track enzymatic debridement enables earlier eschar removal without compromising early outcomes in deep burns: A retrospective matched-pair analysis." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2026. PMID: 41956834. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41956834/

[26] De Mey K, van Durme J, Verbelen J, et al.. "Does enzymatic debridement reduce the occurrence of hypertrophic scarring in intermediate depth burns." Burns 2026. PMID: 41380209. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41380209/

[27] Heitzmann W, Mossing M, von Kohout M, et al.. "Long-term skin quality and scar formation after enzymatic debridement of deep-dermal burn wounds: A follow-up comparative study of Suprathel® and Jelonet®." Burns 2026. PMID: 41274105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41274105/

[28] Heitzmann W, Schulz A, Fuchs PC, Schiefer JL. "Assessing the Effect of Enzymatic Debridement on the Scar Quality in Partial-Thickness Burns to Deep Dermal Burns of the Hand: A Long-Term Evaluation." Medicina (Kaunas) 2024. PMID: 38541207. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38541207/

[29] Daniels M, Stromps JP, Heitzmann W, Schiefer J, Fuchs PC, Seyhan H. "Nexobrid Treatment for Burn Injuries in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Home Oxygen Therapy." J Burn Care Res 2023. PMID: 34197585. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34197585/

[30] Korzeniowski T, Strużyna J, Chrapusta AM, et al.. "A Questionnaire-Based Study to Obtain a Consensus from 5 Polish Burns Centers on Eschar Removal by Bromelain-Based Enzymatic Debridement (Nexobrid®) in Burns Following the 2020 Updated European Consensus Guidelines." Med Sci Monit 2022. PMID: 35064095. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35064095/

[31] Maisel Lotan A, Merin O, Shoham Y, et al.. "The Israeli mission to the 2023 Armenian burn mass casualty incident - Lessons learned." Burns 2025. PMID: 40424673. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40424673/

[32] Schulz A, Fuchs PC, Hans N, Opländer C, Valdez LB, Schiefer JL. "Inhibition of Bromelain Activity During Enzymatic Debridement of Burn Wounds Pretreated With Frequently Used Products." J Burn Care Res 2018. PMID: 29897542. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29897542/