Clinical efficacy of a new monoflament fibre-containing wound debridement product

Bahr, S.; Mustafi, Nesat; Hättig, P.; Piatkowski, Andrzej; Mosti, Giovanni; Reimann, K.; Abel, Martin; Dini, Valentina; Restelli, J.; Babadagi-Hardt, Zeynep; Abbritti, Franca; Eberlein, Thomas; Wild, T. Cameron; Bandl, K.; Schmitz, Marweh

doi:10.12968/jowc.2011.20.5.242

Cited by 45 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An effective method is required that can be handled by all wound care clinicians in all settings [12,13]. It should be easy to perform, safe, and, importantly, comfortable for patients [5,13]. In a clinical study the debridement pad was shown to effectively remove devitalized tissue [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It should be easy to perform, safe, and, importantly, comfortable for patients [5,13]. In a clinical study the debridement pad was shown to effectively remove devitalized tissue [5]. The authors concluded that the results of the clinical evaluation indicate that the monofilament fiber product has the potential to replace several modes of debridement, based on its efficacy, short procedure, ease of use, and patient comfort [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a clinical study the debridement pad was shown to effectively remove devitalized tissue [5]. The authors concluded that the results of the clinical evaluation indicate that the monofilament fiber product has the potential to replace several modes of debridement, based on its efficacy, short procedure, ease of use, and patient comfort [5]. Clinically it is not feasible to perform a standardized comparison on debridement methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mechanical debridement is historically associated with the use of wet-to-dry gauze, which nondiscriminatorily removes devitalized tissue, resulting in significant pain and damage to healthy tissue [4]. In a clinical study [5] mechanical wound cleansing and debridement using a monofilament polyester fiber product was shown to be effective, pain and trauma free (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

In vitro Evaluation of the Cleansing Effect of a Monofilament Fiber Debridement Pad Compared to Gauze Swabs

Wiegand

Reddersen²,

Hipler³

et al. 2016

Skin Pharmacol Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Removal of nonvital tissue is an accepted method to eradicate biofilms and to stimulate wound healing. Debridement using a monofilament polyester fiber pad has clinically been shown to be effective as well as pain and trauma free. Methods: For in vitro determination of the cleansing capacity of this product compared to gauze swabs, a wound debridement model was used with glass plates coated with a bovine serum albumin solution, stained with hematoxylin. Both products were moistened and fixed to a weight connected to a regulated motor and were then pulled over the holding device with the coated glass plate under standardized conditions (power = 0.067 N/cm², velocity = 1.6 cm/s). Results: At a low coating concentration (0.5%) both products were equally effective, but at a high concentration (1.5%) cleansing did not occur after 5 wipes. When wiping the plates 15 times, the debridement pad cleansed significantly (p < 0.001) better than gauze. When consecutively wiping 4 coated plates with a single debridement pad or swab, the pad exhibited and maintained a significantly higher cleansing capacity while gauze quickly lost its effect. Conclusion: Our in vitro test results indicated a higher cleansing capacity of the debridement pad compared to gauze swabs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In vitro Evaluation of the Cleansing Effect of a Monofilament Fiber Debridement Pad Compared to Gauze Swabs

Wiegand

Reddersen²,

Hipler³

et al. 2016

Skin Pharmacol Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13 Recently, new, mechanical, polymer fiber debriding devices have emerged, designed to remove both established wound biofilms and devitalized tissue with minimal discomfort ( e.g. , Debrisoft ® ; Activa Healthcare, Debrimitt ™ ; Crawford Healthcare Ltd. 14 ).…”

Section: Clinical Problem Addressedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Effectiveness of Polymer Debriding Devices Using a Porcine Wound Biofilm Model

Wilkinson

McBain

Stephenson³

et al. 2016

Advances in Wound Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Debridement to remove necrotic and/or infected tissue and promote active healing remains a cornerstone of contemporary chronic wound management. While there has been a recent shift toward less invasive polymer-based debriding devices, their efficacy requires rigorous evaluation.Approach: This study was designed to directly compare monofilament debriding devices to traditional gauze using a wounded porcine skin biofilm model with standardized application parameters. Biofilm removal was determined using a surface viability assay, bacterial counts, histological assessment, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Results: Quantitative analysis revealed that monofilament debriding devices outperformed the standard gauze, resulting in up to 100-fold greater reduction in bacterial counts. Interestingly, histological and morphological analyses suggested that debridement not only removed bacteria, but also differentially disrupted the bacterially-derived extracellular polymeric substance. Finally, SEM of post-debridement monofilaments showed structural changes in attached bacteria, implying a negative impact on viability.Innovation: This is the first study to combine controlled and defined debridement application with a biologically relevant ex vivo biofilm model to directly compare monofilament debriding devices.Conclusion: These data support the use of monofilament debriding devices for the removal of established wound biofilms and suggest variable efficacy towards biofilms composed of different species of bacteria.

show abstract

Debridement for surgical wounds

Smith,

Donaldson,

Brown

2024

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSurgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue will expedite wound healing. There are numerous methods available but no consensus on which one is most effective for surgical wounds. ObjectivesTo determine the effect of different methods of debridement on the rate of debridement and healing of surgical wounds. Search methodsIn March 2013, for this third update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with outcomes including at least one of the following: time to complete debridement or time to complete healing. Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently reviewed the abstracts and titles obtained from the search, extracted data independently using a standardised extraction sheet and independently assessed methodological quality. One review author was involved in all stages of the data collection and extraction process, thus ensuring continuity. Main resultsFive RCTs (159 participants) were eligible for inclusion; all compared treatments for infected surgical wounds and reported time required to achieve a clean wound bed (complete debridement). One trial compared an enzymatic agent (streptokinase/streptodornase) with saline-soaked dressings. Four trials compared the effectiveness of dextranomer beads or paste with other products (different comparator in each trial) to achieve complete debridement. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the unique comparisons within each trial. One trial reported that dextranomer achieved a clean wound bed significantly more quickly than Eusol, and one trial comparing enzymatic debridement with saline-soaked dressings reported that the enzyme-treated wounds were cleaned more quickly. However, methodological quality was poor in these two trials.

show abstract

Clinical efficacy of a new monoflament fibre-containing wound debridement product

Cited by 45 publications

References 9 publications

In vitro Evaluation of the Cleansing Effect of a Monofilament Fiber Debridement Pad Compared to Gauze Swabs

In vitro Evaluation of the Cleansing Effect of a Monofilament Fiber Debridement Pad Compared to Gauze Swabs

Comparing the Effectiveness of Polymer Debriding Devices Using a Porcine Wound Biofilm Model

Debridement for surgical wounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About