Burns are the most devastating injuries that can occur. The location of burn influence healing as
burns to face, neck, hands and feet. Regarding hands, its represent a small wound area, although a
major potential for disabilities as stiffness and contracture. The aim of burned hand treatment is to
achieve healing in shortest possible time without producing disabilities. However burned hand can
be treated with occlusive dressing, but it may associate with finger stiffness after prolonged
immobilization. There are other methods can be used; the non-occlusive dressing as plastic bag or
glove, they have the advantages of ease to use, allow ability to observe the hand, providing a good
healing environment with good wound healing. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of two
dressing techniques, conventional occlusive dressing versus polythene gloving on second degree
burned hands. Setting: The study was carried out at the burn unit of the main university hospital in
Alexandria. Subjects: A convenient sample of 40 patients admitted to burn unit suffering from
second-degree burned hands was included in this study. The subjects were selected according to
the following criteria: adult of both sexes, able and willing to cooperate and communicate, newly
admitted with recent burns. Patient with co-morbid disease, associated trauma, escharatomy was
excluded from this study. Forty patients that included in the study were divided randomly into two
groups of equal size (20 patients, each). The first 20 patients were managed by conventional
occlusive dressings. The second 20 patients were managed by polythene gloving. Tools: Two tools
were used for data collection. The first tool (Burn Patients Assessment and Follow-Up Sheet)
comprised three parts (1) Biosociodemographic data, (2) Burn wound assessment, (3)
Bacteriological studies. Tool two the Burned Hands Daily Living Activities (DLAs) Observation
Checklist including 8 items.. Results: In the present study (70%, 80%) were workers respectively in
conventional occlusive and polythene gloves groups. The results of this study found no statistically
significant differences between conventional occlusive and polythene gloving techniques regarding
the wound healing process (granulation and epithelialization) and infection rate. However,
polythene gloving was painless, less time consuming, low cost and allowing for daily living
activities as compared with conventional occlusive technique. Conclusion: The results of this study
denotes that using polythene gloving is more quick, painless, less time consuming and allowed for
daily living activity (DLAs) which promote in dependency in patient with burned hands.
Recommendations: Studies effect of polythene gloves dressing on second degree burned
hands/hand at outpatient and on 3rd degree burned hand.