Aim: Fluorescence imaging can visualize polymicrobial populations in chronic and acute wounds based on porphyrin fluorescence. We investigated the fluorescent properties of specific wound pathogens and the fluorescence detected from bacteria in biofilm. Methods: Utilizing Remel Porphyrin Test Agar, 32 bacterial and four yeast species were examined for red fluorescence under 405 nm violet light illumination. Polymicrobial biofilms, supplemented with δ-aminolevulinic acid, were investigated similarly. Results: A total of 28/32 bacteria, 1/4 yeast species and polymicrobial biofilms produced red fluorescence, in agreement with their known porphyrin production abilities. Conclusion: These results identify common wound pathogens capable of producing porphyrin-specific fluorescence and support clinical observations using fluorescence imaging to detect pathogenic bacteria in chronic wounds.

The persistent presence of pathogenic bacteria is one of the main obstacles to wound healing. Detection of wound bacteria relies on sampling methods, which delay confirmation by several days. However, a novel handheld fluorescence imaging device has recently enabled real-time detection of bacteria in wounds based on their intrinsic fluorescence characteristics, which differ from those of background tissues. This device illuminates the wound with violet (405 nm) light, causing tissues and bacteria to produce endogenous, characteristic fluorescence signals that are filtered and displayed on the device screen in real-time. The resulting images allow for rapid assessment and documentation of the presence, location, and extent of fluorescent bacteria at moderate-to-heavy loads. This information has been shown to assist in wound assessment and guide patient-specific treatment plans. However, proper image interpretation is essential to assessing this information. To properly identify regions of bacterial fluorescence, users must understand: (1) Fluorescence signals from tissues (e.g., wound tissues, tendon, bone) and fluids (e.g., blood, pus); (2) fluorescence signals from bacteria (red or cyan); (3) the rationale for varying hues of both tissue and bacterial fluorescence; (4) image artifacts that can occur; and (5) some potentially confounding signals from non-biological materials (e.g., fluorescent cleansing solutions). Therefore, this tutorial provides clinicians with a rationale for identifying common wound fluorescence characteristics. Clinical examples are intended to help clinicians with image interpretation—with a focus on image artifacts and potential confounders of image interpretation—and suggestions of how to overcome such challenges when imaging wounds in clinical practice.

Objective: Diagnostics which provide objective information to facilitate evidence-based treatment decisions could improve the chance of wound healing. Accurate wound measurements, objective bacterial assessment, and the regular, consistent tracking of these parameters are important aspects of wound care. This study aimed to assess the accuracy, clinical incorporation and documentation capabilities of a handheld bacterial fluorescence imaging device (MolecuLight i:X). Method: Benchtop wound models with known dimensions and clinical wound images were repeatedly measured by trained clinicians to quantify accuracy and intra/inter-user coefficients of variation (COV) of the imaging device measurement software. In a clinical trial of 50 wounds, wound dimensions were digitally measured and fluorescence images were acquired to assess for the presence of bacteria at moderate-to-heavy loads. Finally, fluorescence imaging was implemented into the routine assessment of 22 routine diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) to determine appropriate debridement level and location based on bacterial fluorescence signals. Results: Wound measurement accuracy was >95% (COV <3%). In the clinical trial of 50 wounds, 72% of study wounds demonstrated positive bacterial fluorescence signals. Levine sampling of wounds was found to under-report bacterial loads relative to fluorescence-guided curettage samples. Furthermore, fluorescence documentation of bacterial presence and location(s) resulted in more aggressive, fluorescence-targeted debridement in 17/20 DFUs after standard of care debridement failed to eliminate bacterial fluorescence in 100% of DFU debridements. Conclusion: The bacterial fluorescence imaging device can be readily implemented for objective, evidenced-based wound assessment and documentation at the bedside. Bedside localisation of regions with moderate-to-heavy bacterial loads facilitated improved sampling, debridement targeting and improved wound bed preparation.

Introduction Scarring following full thickness burns leads to significant reductions in range of motion and quality of life for burn patients. To effectively study scar development and the efficacy of anti-scarring treatments in a large animal model (female red Duroc pigs), reproducible, uniform, full-thickness, burn wounds are needed to reduce variability in observed results that occur with burn depth. Prior studies have proposed that initial temperature of the burner, contact time with skin, thermal capacity of burner material, and the amount of pressure applied to the skin need to be strictly controlled to ensure reproducibility. The purpose of this study was to develop a new burner that enables temperature and pressure to be digitally controlled and monitored in real-time throughout burn wound creation and compare it to a standard burn device. Methods A custom burn device was manufactured with an electrically heated burn stylus and a temperature control feedback loop via an electronic microstat. Pressure monitoring was controlled by incorporation of a digital scale into the device, which measured downward force. The standard device was comprised of a heat resistant handle with a long rod connected to the burn stylus, which was heated using a hot plate. To quantify skin surface temperature and internal stylus temperature as a function of contact time, the burners were heated to the target temperature (200 ± 5 °C) and pressed into the skin for 40 s to create the thermal injuries. Time to reach target temperature and elapsed time between burns were recorded. In addition, each unit was evaluated for reproducibility within and across three independent users by generating burn wounds at contact times spanning from 5 to 40 s at a constant pressure and at pressures of 1 or 3 lbs with a constant contact time of 40 s. Biopsies were collected for histological analysis and burn depth quantification using digital image analysis (ImageJ). Results The custom burn device maintained both its internal temperature and the skin surface temperature near target temperature throughout contact time. In contrast, the standard burner required more than 20 s of contact time to raise the skin surface temperature to target due to its quickly decreasing internal temperature. The custom burner was able to create four consecutive burns in less than half the time of the standard burner. Average burn depth scaled positively with time and pressure in both burn units. However, the distribution of burn depth within each time-pressure combination in the custom device was significantly smaller than with the standard device and independent of user. Conclusions The custom burn device's ability to continually heat the burn stylus and actively control pressure and temperature allowed for more rapid and reproducible burn wounds. Burns of tailored and repeatable depths, independent of user, provide a platform for the study of anti-scar and other wound healing therapies without the added variable of non-uniform starting injury.

No abstract