Comparing the effectiveness of polymer debriding devices using a porcine wound biofilm model

Wilkinson, Holly N.; McBain, Andrew J.; Stephenson, Christian; Hardman, Matthew J.

Abstract

Objective: Debridement to remove necrotic and/or infected tissue and promote active healing remains a cornerstone of contemporary chronic wound management. While there has been a recent shift toward less invasive polymer-based debriding devices, their efficacy requires rigorous evaluation.

Approach: This study was designed to directly compare monofilament debriding devices to traditional gauze using a wounded porcine skin biofilm model with standardized application parameters. Biofilm removal was determined using a surface viability assay, bacterial counts, histological assessment, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Results: Quantitative analysis revealed that monofilament debriding devices outperformed the standard gauze, resulting in up to 100-fold greater reduction in bacterial counts. Interestingly, histological and morphological analyses suggested that debridement not only removed bacteria, but also differentially disrupted the bacterially-derived extracellular polymeric substance. Finally, SEM of post-debridement monofilaments showed structural changes in attached bacteria, implying a negative impact on viability.

Innovation: This is the first study to combine controlled and defined debridement application with a biologically relevant ex vivo biofilm model to directly compare monofilament debriding devices.

Conclusion: These data support the use of monofilament debriding devices for the removal of established wound biofilms and suggest variable efficacy towards biofilms composed of different species of bacteria.

Citation

Wilkinson, H. N., McBain, A. J., Stephenson, C., & Hardman, M. J. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of polymer debriding devices using a porcine wound biofilm model. Advances in wound care, 5(11), 475-485. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0683

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Dec 21, 2015
• Online Publication Date: Apr 22, 2016
• Publication Date: Nov 1, 2016
• Deposit Date: Dec 10, 2017
• Publicly Available Date: Dec 13, 2017
• Journal: Advances in Wound Care
• Print ISSN: 2162-1918
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 11
• Pages: 475-485
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0683
• Keywords: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine; Emergency Medicine
• Public URL: https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/499047
• Publisher URL: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/wound.2015.0683
• Related Public URLs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5105345/
• Contract Date: Dec 10, 2017