Biofilm recalcitrance is a persistent problem when managing difficult to heal and infected chronic wounds. The wound biofilm is a fundamental factor in the re-occurrence and delayed healing commonly observed in non-healing and infected chronic wounds. However, there is presently no single antimicrobial agent that is completely efficacious against both the planktonic and sessile polymicrobial communities evident in at risk or infected wounds. We will review currently available antimicrobials, with particular emphasis on silver and iodine, employed to help suppress biofilms in wounds. In addition, we will also review the effect of pH on antimicrobial efficacy. Available evidence suggests that it is best to take a multifactorial approach towards controlling biofilm in chronic, "at risk" and infected wounds. This highlights the growing importance of avoiding indiscriminate or inappropriate use of antimicrobials in the treatment of chronic wounds.

No abstract

Significance: This article discusses the history and developments of silicone gel sheeting (SGS) scar therapy. Furthermore, we review a breadth of literature to gain an insight into how and why topical silicone gels remain the favored treatment of medical experts in scar management. We also analyze an ever increasing number of alternative therapies claiming to provide enhanced scar reduction performance. Recent Advances: Topical silicone gel treatments seem to remain the first point of clinical recommendation in scar management. SGS has been used in scar therapy for over 30 years, during which its efficacy has been the subject of numerous clinical evaluations. Critical Issues: While the exact mechanisms by which SGS improves hypertrophic scars, keloid development and recovery are yet to be fully agreed upon, its ability to do so remains largely undisputed at present. However, there still is ongoing deliberation over the exact mechanism of action of silicone in improving a scar. At present it is likely that through occlusion of the scar site and hydration of the wound bed, the overactivity of scar-related cells is suppressed, and their activity normalized. Future Direction: The clinical support of topical silicone gel products, relative to all alternative scar therapies, is considered the internationally recommended first-line form of scar management, and favored by consensus among healthcare professionals. However, there still remains the need for further clinical evidence and a better understanding of the mechanism behind the benefit of silicone gel for use in the prevention of abnormal scarring. SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCESilicone gel sheeting (SGS) has been used in scar therapy for over 30 years, during which its efficacy has been the subject of numerous clinical evaluations. While the exact mechanisms by which SGS improves hypertrophic scars, keloid development and recovery are yet to be fully agreed upon, its ability to do so remains largely undisputed. As such, topical silicone gel treatments seem to remain the first point of clinical recommendation in scar management. This article aims to review a breadth of literature to gain an insight not only into how, but also why topical silicone gels remain the favored treatment of medical experts in scar management. We also analyze an ever increasing number of alternative therapies claiming to provide enhanced scar reduction performance as a comparison. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCESilicone has been used for more than 30 years in the treatment of cutaneous scars.1 New formulations and formats of silicone gel products are becoming available for use in the treatment of scarring resulting from surgery, burns, and other skin injuries requiring hospital treatment.

No abstract

No abstract