ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy between moisture healing therapy and multi-source therapeutic apparatus in the management of skin damage. MethodsFrom January 2012 to May 2014, 48 patients with 66 skin damages were divided into observation group (26 patients with 35 damages) and control group (22 patients with 31 damages) based on their informed consent and their own willing to choose the treatment methods. Patients in the observation group were treated with moisture dressings, while those in the control group received exposed treatment through multi-source therapeutic apparatus. Then, we compared the groups in terms of secondary infection rate, pain score, and healing time. ResultsThe secondary infection rate of the observation group was 2.9%, significantly lower than that of the control group (19.4%) (P<0.05). Grade Ⅱ and Ⅲ pain rate of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). The damage healing time of the face, body and limbs was (10.0±1.3), (13.0±1.4), and (15±1.67) days, respectively, in the observation group, which was significantly shorter those in the control group [(16.0±2.6), (21.0±2.5), and (24.0±2.4) days] (P<0.05). ConclusionMoisture healing therapy can improve the eradication of necrotic tissue and dry gangrene, reduce the risk of infection and relieve pain of the patients as well as promote healing process and reduce the formation of scar by promoting regeneration of granulation and epithelium, which is worth clinical popularizing.