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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of surgical research 2012-08, Vol.176 (2), p.701-707 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 < 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.</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 & 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</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 < 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.</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 & control</subject><subject>hydrosurgery</subject><subject>Hydrotherapy - methods</subject><subject>Leukocytes - cytology</subject><subject>Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - growth & development</subject><subject>Necrosis - prevention & control</subject><subject>plasma mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Skin Infections - pathology</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Skin Infections - prevention & 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 & control</topic><topic>hydrosurgery</topic><topic>Hydrotherapy - methods</topic><topic>Leukocytes - cytology</topic><topic>Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - growth & development</topic><topic>Necrosis - prevention & control</topic><topic>plasma mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Skin Infections - pathology</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Skin Infections - prevention & 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 < 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.</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 |