Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is a ubiquitous industrial chemical that is particularly hazardous because of the potential for systemic effects and the induction of severe cutaneous necrosis after contact with the skin. Minimizing skin injury requires decontaminating the affected area promptly with an emergency rinsing solution. Few experimental studies have objectively characterized rinsing solutions such as Diphoterine (DP). Here we develop an ex vivo pigskin model to study and compare the efficacy of rinsing solutions as initial decontaminating agents to stop the progression of skin lesions after HF splashing. The pigskin model shows an immediate local response to HF at varying concentrations and exposure times. We then exposed the pigskin biopsies to 3.75% HF for 1 min and rinsed them with different solutions, including water, 0.9% NaCl solution (saline), 10% calcium gluconate (CaG), Hexafluorine (HXF), and DP. We found DP to be a more effective agent for decontaminating HF lesions than water, saline, and CaG. DP had a similar efficacy as HXF, an emergency rinsing solution used specifically for decontaminating HF-exposed skin. This study shows that skin exposed to HF must be treated quickly from the first minute of exposure.

UNASSIGNED: Diphoterine® is an amphoteric irrigating solution armed with rapid pH-neutralising action. It serves as an effective first-aid treatment for managing chemical burns, including chemical eye injury (CEI). However, its use is not widely adopted in current clinical practice, primarily attributed to limited clinical evidence. This study aims to highlight the experience in using Diphoterine for managing CEI in a UK tertiary referral centre.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective case series included all patients who presented with CEI and treated with Diphoterine at the James Cook University Hospital, UK, between April 2018 and February 2020.
UNASSIGNED: Seven patients (10 eyes) were included; the mean age was 28.2 ± 17.0 years (ranged, 3-70 years) and 85.7% were male. All patients presented with an alkaline injury with a mean presenting pH of 8.7 ± 0.7 and a median (±interquartile range [IQR]) corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 0.10 ± 0.28 logMAR. Based on Roper-Hall classification, 90% and 10% of the eyes were of grade-I and -IV CEI, respectively. All eyes received normal saline/water as the first irrigation fluid and Diphoterine as second irrigation fluid. The mean pH improved slightly after first irrigation (8.4 ± 0.7; p = 0.13) and significantly after second irrigation (7.6 ± 0.4; p = 0.001). The volume of irrigation used was significantly less for Diphoterine (520 ± 193 mL) than for normal saline/water (2700 ± 2451 mL; p = 0.016). At final follow-up (median = 5 days), the median CDVA remained stable at 0.10 ± 0.28 logMAR (p = 0.60). One patient developed near-total limbal stem cell deficiency as a complication of grade-IV injury and was awaiting limbal stem cell transplantation at last follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: This study represents the first case series in the United Kingdom, reporting the use of Diphoterine in managing CEI. The rapid pH-neutralising action of Diphoterine, with less volume required, makes it an ideal initial treatment for efficiently managing adult and paediatric patients with CEI in clinics.

Diphoterine is a hypertonic, amphoteric, polyvalent and chelating decontamination solution used in the treatment of cutaneous and ocular chemical burns. Due to infrequent use by emergency physicians along with the small number of available studies, its debate in the literature as to its efficacy and safety remains inconclusive.
A structured literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS and TOXNET to June 2016 for original English-language studies reporting on the safety and effectiveness of Diphoterine. Methodological and reporting quality of pre-clinical animal studies was assessed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Clinical studies were assessed using Chambers\' criteria.
13 studies (seven in the pre-clinical, five in the clinical setting and one mixed) met the study inclusion criteria. Pre-clinical studies showed a faster resolution of pH and reduced tissue necrosis with Diphoterine. Clinical studies showed reduced tissue necrosis/severity of symptoms, faster pH resolution and a reduction in pain when using Diphoterine. No adverse events were attributable to Diphoterine. Reporting and methodology of the studies was poor or showed a high risk of bias.
Diphoterine appears to be safe to use and is probably superior to other rinsing solutions. However, immediate decontamination is imperative and if Diphoterine is not available a different rinsing solution should be used. The methodology of the published literature for Diphoterine is generally poor and future publications should use the frameworks given as templates.

A multitude of household and occupational compounds have the potential to induce chemical burns to the eye and skin. Without prompt intervention, irreversible visual loss and disfigurement may prevail. Diphoterine® and Hexafluorine® are amphoteric and hypertonic chelating solutions used in the management of general chemical and hydrofluoric acid burns, respectively. They rapidly neutralise both acid and alkali agents without heat release and limit diffusion, making them superior to water irrigation alone. However, although Diphoterine® and Hexafluorine® uptake is slowly increasing in industrial workplaces, there is a paucity of education and use in both emergency departments and plastic surgery units worldwide. Herein, we present a case report of combined ocular and cutaneous acid burn treated with Diphoterine®, together with a review of the current supporting literature.

Diphoterine(®) is an amphoteric irrigating agent for the treatment of chemical burns and rapidly neutralises both acids and alkalis faster than water alone. Diphoterine(®) is widely used as a first aid agent in a wide range of industries globally. This is a retrospective review of the clinical use of Diphoterine(®) on chemical burns in an adult tertiary referral burn centre, often with a delay of several hours after the injury. patients admitted with chemical burns within 24 hours of the incident with an abnormal wound pH or in pain, were treated with Diphoterine(®) spray. Over a 32-month period, 1,875 burn referrals were admitted of which 131 (7%) were chemical burns. Diphoterine(®) was used in 47 patients (36%). The male to female ratio for the 131 patients was 4:1. Alkaline burns were the commonest (55%). patients who received Diphoterine(®) were significantly younger (38 vs 43 years; p=0.05) and presented earlier (0.5 vs 2.55 days; p=0.004). There was a significant change in the wound pH pre- and post-application of Diphoterine(®), compared to patients who were treated with water irrigation only, with a pH change of 1.076 vs 0.4 (p <0.05). There was no significant difference in the time to healing, the length of hospital stay, or need for surgery. in conclusion, based on our retrospective cohort, Diphoterine(®) could be a valuable tool for use in hospital settings to neutralise both alkaline and acid burns.
La solution Diphotérine® est un agent d’irrigation amphotère pour le traitement des brûlures chimiques qui neutralise les acides et alcalis plus rapidement que l’eau seule. La Diphotérine® est largement utilisé comme un premier agent de l’aide dans un large éventail d’industries au monde. Nous présentons une revue rétrospective de l’utilisation clinique de la Diphotérine® sur les brûlures chimiques. Cette revue se base sur les données d’un centre de référence tertiaire pour les brûlés adultes où souvent les patients se sont présentés avec un retard de plusieurs heures après la blessure. Tous les patients atteints de brûlures chimiques, admis entre les 24 heures suivant l’incident dans la douleur ou avec le pH anormale de la plaie, ont été traités avec la Diphotérine® appliquée par pulvérisation. Sur une période de 32 mois, 1 875 références de brûlures ont été admis dont 131 (7%) étaient des brûlures chimiques. La Diphotérine® a été utilisée chez 47 patients (36%). Le rapport hommes-femmes pour les 131 patients était de 4: 1. Les brûlures alcalines étaient les plus fréquentes (55%). Les patients qui ont reçu la Diphotérine® étaient significativement plus jeunes (38 v 43; p = 0,05) et si sont présentés plus tôt par rapport aux patients plus âgés (0,5 v 2,55 jours; p = 0,004). Il y avait un changement significatif dans le pH avant et aprés l’application de la Diphotérine®, par rapport aux patients qui ont été traités avec l’irrigation de l’eau seulement, avec un changement de pH de 1,076 v 0,4 (p <0,05). Il n’y avait pas de différence significative dans le temps de la guérison, la durée de séjour à l’hôpital, ou le besoin de chirurgie. En conclusion, sur la base de notre cohorte rétrospective, la Diphotérine® pourrait être un outil précieux en milieu hospitalier pour neutraliser des brûlures alcalines et à l’acide.