Excessive levels of bacteria impede wound healing and can lead to infectious complications. Unfortunately, clinical signs and symptoms of elevated bacterial burden are often unreliable. As a result, point--of--care fluorescence imaging, used to detect critical bacterial burden in wounds, is becoming widely recognized and adopted by clinicians across the globe as an accepted and added component of wound assessment protocol. A Delphi method was employed to establish consensus guidelines describing fluorescence imaging use. A multidisciplinary panel of 32 wound experts (56% MD, 22% podiatrist, 12.5% nurses/nurse practitioners) representing multiple sites of service (e.g., hospital outpatient, inpatient, private office, long-term care) completed two rounds of online questionnaires. The Delphi included key topics, including competencies required to perform imaging, clinical indications for imaging (e.g., signs/symptoms present, procedures warranting imaging), frequency of imaging, and a clinical workflow algorithm. Describing their clinical experiences of imaging impact, >80% reported changes in treatment plans, 96% reported that imaging-informed treatment plans led to improved wound healing, 78% reported reduced rates of amputations, and 83% reported reduced rates of microbiological sampling. The guidelines provided here will help to standardize use of fluorescence imaging among wound care providers and enhance the quality of patient care.

No abstract

This early experience supplementing conventional wound care with APWT suggests it may promote healing in chronic wounds, where the ordered cellular and molecular processes leading to healing have stalled.

The retrospective pragmatic real‐world data (RWD) study compared the healing outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) treated with either ovine forestomach matrix (OFM) (n = 1150) or collagen/oxidised regenerated cellulose (ORC) (n = 1072) in out‐patient wound care centres. Median time to wound closure was significantly (P = .0015) faster in the OFM group (14.6 ± 0.5 weeks) relative to the collagen/ORC group (16.4 ± 0.7). A sub‐group analysis was performed to understand the relative efficacy in DFUs requiring longer periods of treatment and showed that DFUs treated with OFM healed up to 5.3 weeks faster in these challenging wounds. The percentage of wounds closed at 36 weeks was significantly improved in OFM treated DFUs relative to the collagen/ORC. A Cox proportional hazards analysis showed OFM‐treated wounds had a 18% greater probability of healing versus wounds managed with collagen/ORC, and the probability increased to 21% when the analysis was adjusted for multiple variables. This study represents the first large retrospective RWD analysis comparing OFM and collagen/ORC and supports the clinical efficacy of OFM in the treatment of DFUs.