Effective Method to Remove Wound Bacteria: Comparison of Various Debridement Modalities in an In Vivo Porcine Model

Background Debridement is one of the crucial steps for successful wound care. In addition to removing necrotic tissue, debridement has been shown to reduce wound-associated bacteria that delay healing. Using an in vivo porcine model, we compared the effects of various methods of debridement, includi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of surgical research 2012-08, Vol.176 (2), p.701-707
Hauptverfasser: Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S, Gil, Joel, B.S, Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D, Warne, Brian, D.P.M, Valdes, Jose, Claro, Abel, B.S, Davis, Stephen C., B.S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 707
container_issue 2
container_start_page 701
container_title The Journal of surgical research
container_volume 176
creator Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S
Gil, Joel, B.S
Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D
Warne, Brian, D.P.M
Valdes, Jose
Claro, Abel, B.S
Davis, Stephen C., B.S
description Background Debridement is one of the crucial steps for successful wound care. In addition to removing necrotic tissue, debridement has been shown to reduce wound-associated bacteria that delay healing. Using an in vivo porcine model, we compared the effects of various methods of debridement, including hydrosurgery and plasma-mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation (PBRA), on bacterial removal and wound healing. Methods One hundred thirty-five deep dermal wounds were inoculated with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and covered with a polyurethane dressing for 48 h to allow for biofilm formation. Wounds were then treated with either PBRA (at two settings), hydrosurgery, sharp debridement, or no debridement. Biopsies were collected for microbiology and histologic assessment on d 0, 2, 9, and 21 post-treatment. Results All treatment groups showed a statistically significant reduction in MRSA counts relative to no debridement at all times points ( P < 0.05). PBRA at a maximum setting had the lowest MRSA counts at all recovery times and, compared with all other treatment groups, a statistically significant difference was observed on d 21 ( P < 0.05). No detrimental effects on the healing process were noted with any of the debridement methods. Conclusion While sharp debridement has been established as the traditional gold standard for rapid removal of necrotic, infected tissue, our results suggest that novel debridement modalities show clinical promise for the treatment of chronic ulcers and burn wounds, especially when bacteria are present.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jss.2011.11.1040
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027375538</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0022480411020051</els_id><sourcerecordid>1027375538</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-55e26de942a86dcee5a3880462cd07c771d730d81cea9197af2bd98432efdf383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctu1DAUhq0K1A6lL8ACeckmgy9JnFQICYZCK7UCQS9Ly2OfqA6JPdjOSH0bnoUnw-mULlhUOpIv-s-v838HoVeULCmh9dt-2ce4ZITS5VykJHtoQUlbFU0t-DO0IISxomxIeYBexNiT_G4F30cHjJUlaXm1QOmk60AnuwV8AenWG5w8_g6jzx83fnIGf1Q6QbDqGK_8uFHBRu-w7_B1vvop4k-wDtbACC7hC2_UYJOFiK3DyuEz9-f3td16_M0HbR3MChheouedGiIcPZyH6OrzyeXqtDj_-uVs9eG80CWlqagqYLWBtmSqqY0GqBRvcpqaaUOEFoIawYlpqAbV0laojq1N25ScQWc63vBD9Gbnuwn-1wQxydFGDcOgHOTRJSVMcFFV91K2k-rgYwzQyU2wowp3WSRn2rKXmbacacu5Mu3c9PrBf1qPYB5b_uHNgnc7AeSUWwtBRm3BaTA2ZOrSePu0__v_2vVgndVq-Al3EHs_BZf5SSojk0T-mPc9r5vmYIRUlP8FOz2l9Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1027375538</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effective Method to Remove Wound Bacteria: Comparison of Various Debridement Modalities in an In Vivo Porcine Model</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S ; Gil, Joel, B.S ; Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D ; Warne, Brian, D.P.M ; Valdes, Jose ; Claro, Abel, B.S ; Davis, Stephen C., B.S</creator><creatorcontrib>Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S ; Gil, Joel, B.S ; Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D ; Warne, Brian, D.P.M ; Valdes, Jose ; Claro, Abel, B.S ; Davis, Stephen C., B.S</creatorcontrib><description>Background Debridement is one of the crucial steps for successful wound care. In addition to removing necrotic tissue, debridement has been shown to reduce wound-associated bacteria that delay healing. Using an in vivo porcine model, we compared the effects of various methods of debridement, including hydrosurgery and plasma-mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation (PBRA), on bacterial removal and wound healing. Methods One hundred thirty-five deep dermal wounds were inoculated with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and covered with a polyurethane dressing for 48 h to allow for biofilm formation. Wounds were then treated with either PBRA (at two settings), hydrosurgery, sharp debridement, or no debridement. Biopsies were collected for microbiology and histologic assessment on d 0, 2, 9, and 21 post-treatment. Results All treatment groups showed a statistically significant reduction in MRSA counts relative to no debridement at all times points ( P &lt; 0.05). PBRA at a maximum setting had the lowest MRSA counts at all recovery times and, compared with all other treatment groups, a statistically significant difference was observed on d 21 ( P &lt; 0.05). No detrimental effects on the healing process were noted with any of the debridement methods. Conclusion While sharp debridement has been established as the traditional gold standard for rapid removal of necrotic, infected tissue, our results suggest that novel debridement modalities show clinical promise for the treatment of chronic ulcers and burn wounds, especially when bacteria are present.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-4804</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-8673</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2011.11.1040</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22440935</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Catheter Ablation - methods ; debridement ; Debridement - methods ; Disease Models, Animal ; Female ; Fibrosis - prevention &amp; control ; hydrosurgery ; Hydrotherapy - methods ; Leukocytes - cytology ; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - growth &amp; development ; Necrosis - prevention &amp; control ; plasma mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation ; Staphylococcal Skin Infections - pathology ; Staphylococcal Skin Infections - prevention &amp; control ; Surgery ; Swine ; wound bacteria ; Wound Healing ; Wounds and Injuries - microbiology ; Wounds and Injuries - pathology ; Wounds and Injuries - surgery</subject><ispartof>The Journal of surgical research, 2012-08, Vol.176 (2), p.701-707</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-55e26de942a86dcee5a3880462cd07c771d730d81cea9197af2bd98432efdf383</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-55e26de942a86dcee5a3880462cd07c771d730d81cea9197af2bd98432efdf383</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.11.1040$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22440935$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gil, Joel, B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warne, Brian, D.P.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valdes, Jose</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claro, Abel, B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Stephen C., B.S</creatorcontrib><title>Effective Method to Remove Wound Bacteria: Comparison of Various Debridement Modalities in an In Vivo Porcine Model</title><title>The Journal of surgical research</title><addtitle>J Surg Res</addtitle><description>Background Debridement is one of the crucial steps for successful wound care. In addition to removing necrotic tissue, debridement has been shown to reduce wound-associated bacteria that delay healing. Using an in vivo porcine model, we compared the effects of various methods of debridement, including hydrosurgery and plasma-mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation (PBRA), on bacterial removal and wound healing. Methods One hundred thirty-five deep dermal wounds were inoculated with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and covered with a polyurethane dressing for 48 h to allow for biofilm formation. Wounds were then treated with either PBRA (at two settings), hydrosurgery, sharp debridement, or no debridement. Biopsies were collected for microbiology and histologic assessment on d 0, 2, 9, and 21 post-treatment. Results All treatment groups showed a statistically significant reduction in MRSA counts relative to no debridement at all times points ( P &lt; 0.05). PBRA at a maximum setting had the lowest MRSA counts at all recovery times and, compared with all other treatment groups, a statistically significant difference was observed on d 21 ( P &lt; 0.05). No detrimental effects on the healing process were noted with any of the debridement methods. Conclusion While sharp debridement has been established as the traditional gold standard for rapid removal of necrotic, infected tissue, our results suggest that novel debridement modalities show clinical promise for the treatment of chronic ulcers and burn wounds, especially when bacteria are present.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Catheter Ablation - methods</subject><subject>debridement</subject><subject>Debridement - methods</subject><subject>Disease Models, Animal</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fibrosis - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>hydrosurgery</subject><subject>Hydrotherapy - methods</subject><subject>Leukocytes - cytology</subject><subject>Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - growth &amp; development</subject><subject>Necrosis - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>plasma mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Skin Infections - pathology</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Skin Infections - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>wound bacteria</subject><subject>Wound Healing</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - microbiology</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - pathology</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - surgery</subject><issn>0022-4804</issn><issn>1095-8673</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctu1DAUhq0K1A6lL8ACeckmgy9JnFQICYZCK7UCQS9Ly2OfqA6JPdjOSH0bnoUnw-mULlhUOpIv-s-v838HoVeULCmh9dt-2ce4ZITS5VykJHtoQUlbFU0t-DO0IISxomxIeYBexNiT_G4F30cHjJUlaXm1QOmk60AnuwV8AenWG5w8_g6jzx83fnIGf1Q6QbDqGK_8uFHBRu-w7_B1vvop4k-wDtbACC7hC2_UYJOFiK3DyuEz9-f3td16_M0HbR3MChheouedGiIcPZyH6OrzyeXqtDj_-uVs9eG80CWlqagqYLWBtmSqqY0GqBRvcpqaaUOEFoIawYlpqAbV0laojq1N25ScQWc63vBD9Gbnuwn-1wQxydFGDcOgHOTRJSVMcFFV91K2k-rgYwzQyU2wowp3WSRn2rKXmbacacu5Mu3c9PrBf1qPYB5b_uHNgnc7AeSUWwtBRm3BaTA2ZOrSePu0__v_2vVgndVq-Al3EHs_BZf5SSojk0T-mPc9r5vmYIRUlP8FOz2l9Q</recordid><startdate>20120801</startdate><enddate>20120801</enddate><creator>Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S</creator><creator>Gil, Joel, B.S</creator><creator>Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D</creator><creator>Warne, Brian, D.P.M</creator><creator>Valdes, Jose</creator><creator>Claro, Abel, B.S</creator><creator>Davis, Stephen C., B.S</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120801</creationdate><title>Effective Method to Remove Wound Bacteria: Comparison of Various Debridement Modalities in an In Vivo Porcine Model</title><author>Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S ; Gil, Joel, B.S ; Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D ; Warne, Brian, D.P.M ; Valdes, Jose ; Claro, Abel, B.S ; Davis, Stephen C., B.S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-55e26de942a86dcee5a3880462cd07c771d730d81cea9197af2bd98432efdf383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Catheter Ablation - methods</topic><topic>debridement</topic><topic>Debridement - methods</topic><topic>Disease Models, Animal</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fibrosis - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>hydrosurgery</topic><topic>Hydrotherapy - methods</topic><topic>Leukocytes - cytology</topic><topic>Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - growth &amp; development</topic><topic>Necrosis - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>plasma mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Skin Infections - pathology</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Skin Infections - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>wound bacteria</topic><topic>Wound Healing</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - microbiology</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - pathology</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gil, Joel, B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warne, Brian, D.P.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valdes, Jose</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claro, Abel, B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Stephen C., B.S</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of surgical research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nusbaum, Aron G., B.S</au><au>Gil, Joel, B.S</au><au>Rippy, Marian K., D.V.M., Ph.D</au><au>Warne, Brian, D.P.M</au><au>Valdes, Jose</au><au>Claro, Abel, B.S</au><au>Davis, Stephen C., B.S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effective Method to Remove Wound Bacteria: Comparison of Various Debridement Modalities in an In Vivo Porcine Model</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of surgical research</jtitle><addtitle>J Surg Res</addtitle><date>2012-08-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>176</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>701</spage><epage>707</epage><pages>701-707</pages><issn>0022-4804</issn><eissn>1095-8673</eissn><abstract>Background Debridement is one of the crucial steps for successful wound care. In addition to removing necrotic tissue, debridement has been shown to reduce wound-associated bacteria that delay healing. Using an in vivo porcine model, we compared the effects of various methods of debridement, including hydrosurgery and plasma-mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation (PBRA), on bacterial removal and wound healing. Methods One hundred thirty-five deep dermal wounds were inoculated with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and covered with a polyurethane dressing for 48 h to allow for biofilm formation. Wounds were then treated with either PBRA (at two settings), hydrosurgery, sharp debridement, or no debridement. Biopsies were collected for microbiology and histologic assessment on d 0, 2, 9, and 21 post-treatment. Results All treatment groups showed a statistically significant reduction in MRSA counts relative to no debridement at all times points ( P &lt; 0.05). PBRA at a maximum setting had the lowest MRSA counts at all recovery times and, compared with all other treatment groups, a statistically significant difference was observed on d 21 ( P &lt; 0.05). No detrimental effects on the healing process were noted with any of the debridement methods. Conclusion While sharp debridement has been established as the traditional gold standard for rapid removal of necrotic, infected tissue, our results suggest that novel debridement modalities show clinical promise for the treatment of chronic ulcers and burn wounds, especially when bacteria are present.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22440935</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jss.2011.11.1040</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-4804
ispartof The Journal of surgical research, 2012-08, Vol.176 (2), p.701-707
issn 0022-4804
1095-8673
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027375538
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Animals
Catheter Ablation - methods
debridement
Debridement - methods
Disease Models, Animal
Female
Fibrosis - prevention & control
hydrosurgery
Hydrotherapy - methods
Leukocytes - cytology
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - growth & development
Necrosis - prevention & control
plasma mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation
Staphylococcal Skin Infections - pathology
Staphylococcal Skin Infections - prevention & control
Surgery
Swine
wound bacteria
Wound Healing
Wounds and Injuries - microbiology
Wounds and Injuries - pathology
Wounds and Injuries - surgery
title Effective Method to Remove Wound Bacteria: Comparison of Various Debridement Modalities in an In Vivo Porcine Model
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T06%3A50%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effective%20Method%20to%20Remove%20Wound%20Bacteria:%20Comparison%20of%20Various%20Debridement%20Modalities%20in%20an%20In%C2%A0Vivo%20Porcine%20Model&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20surgical%20research&rft.au=Nusbaum,%20Aron%20G.,%20B.S&rft.date=2012-08-01&rft.volume=176&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=701&rft.epage=707&rft.pages=701-707&rft.issn=0022-4804&rft.eissn=1095-8673&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jss.2011.11.1040&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1027375538%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1027375538&rft_id=info:pmid/22440935&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0022480411020051&rfr_iscdi=true