One of the major global health issues is the existence of chronic wounds. Chronic wounds are wounds that show a delayed, or even failed, healing process. The healing process often stagnates in the inflammatory phase or proliferative phase. Since traditional treatment methods have shown to be of limited effectiveness in chronic wound care, the focus has shifted to increase the knowledge of the wound healing process and the deficiencies encountered in chronic wounds. This increased knowledge has provided the opportunity for development of new diagnostics and therapeutics in chronic wound care that detect and treat specific deficiencies instead of one common treatment for all chronic wounds. This mini review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge about the wound healing process and its deficiencies in chronic wound care. In addition, some promising diagnostic and therapeutic innovations will be highlighted.

In clinical practice, diagnosis of wound infection is based on the classical clinical signs of infection. When infection is suspected, wounds are often swabbed for microbiological culturing. These methods are not accurate (clinical judgment in chronic wounds) or provide results after several days (wound swab). Therefore, there is an urgent need for an easy-to-use diagnostic tool for fast detection of wound infection, especially in chronic wounds. This study determined the diagnostic properties of the enzymes myeloperoxidase, human neutrophil elastase (HNE), lysozyme and cathepsin-G in detecting wound infection when compared to wound swabs. Both chronic and acute wounds of 81 patients were assessed through clinical judgment, enzyme analysis and wound swab. Three promising enzyme models for detecting wound infection were identified. A positive test was defined as: at least one enzyme positive after 30 minutes (model 1), lysozyme and HNE positive after 30 minutes (model 2), myeloperoxidase positive after 5 minutes, and HNE or lysozyme positive after 30 minutes (model 3). All models were significant (p≤0.001). There was no correlation between clinical judgment and wound swab, indicating the need for novel diagnostic systems. Enzyme analysis is fast, easy to use and superior to clinical judgment when compared to wound swabs.

No abstract

Assessment of infection does not significantly differ when culture results from swabs or biopsies are available. The substantial variability between individual experts indicates non-uniformity in the way wounds are assessed. This complicates accurate detection of infection and comparability between studies using assessment of infection as reference standard.

The question remains whether wound swabs yield similar culture results to the traditional gold standard, biopsies. Swabs are not invasive and easy to perform. However, they are believed to capture microorganisms from the surface rather than microorganisms that have invaded tissue. Several studies compared swabs and biopsies using different populations and sampling methods, complicating the ability to draw conclusions for clinical practice. This study aimed to compare swab and biopsy in clinical practice, by including a variety of wounds and using standard sampling and culture procedures. Swabs (Levine technique) and biopsies were taken for microbiological culture in a standardized manner from the same location of one wound for each patient. Statistical analyses were performed to determine overall agreement, and observed agreement and kappa for specific microorganisms. A variety of wounds of 180 patients from different healthcare facilities in The Netherlands were included. Skin flora was more frequently cultured from swabs, resulting in similar recovery rates when excluding skin flora (1.34 vs 1.35). Swabs were able to identify all microorganisms cultured from biopsies in 131 wounds (72.8%) wounds. Most frequently identified organisms were Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and beta-haemolytic streptococci species. Observed agreement and kappa for these organisms varied between 87.2 and 97.8% and 0.73 and 0.85, respectively. This study demonstrates that swabs and biopsies tend to yield the same culture results when taken from the same location. For frequently occurring microorganisms, agreement between the two methods was even higher. Therefore, there seems to be no direct need for invasive biopsy in clinical practice.