Literature DB >> 16722876

Comparison of bacteria-retaining ability of absorbent wound dressings.

Masahiro Tachi1, Shinichi Hirabayashi, Yoshiyuki Yonehara, Yasutoshi Suzuki, Philip Bowler.   

Abstract

Fibrous materials in some modern absorbent wound dressings have the ability to sequester and retain bacteria; however, this ability varies according to the nature of the fibres. We studied the bacterial retention capacity of alginate and carboxymethylcellulose dressings, using an infected skin ulcer model on the backs of rats. Wound surfaces were inoculated with either Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a concentration of 1.5 x 10(6) colony-forming units per wound. AQUACEL; Hydrofiber;, Kaltostat; or Sorbsan; were applied to the contaminated wounds for 12 h. Each dressing was then divided into two pieces. Total viable bacterial count within the dressing was calculated using one piece, and bacterial count released from the dressing into physiological saline was determined using the other piece, enabling bacterial retention rate to be calculated. Bacterial counts in tissue were also determined. Each dressing was tested on each of 10 wounds contaminated with each bacterium. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for replicated measures combined with Duncan's multiple comparison test. AQUACEL; Hydrofiber; dressing was most effective in its ability to retain both Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (p < 0.05). Bacterial counts in tissue showed no significant change with respect to pathogen or the type of dressing used. It can be concluded that the bacterial retaining ability of AQUACEL; Hydrofiber; dressing was found to be significantly higher than that of alginate dressings in an infected animal wound model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 16722876      PMCID: PMC7951750          DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-4801.2004.00058.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Wound J        ISSN: 1742-4801            Impact factor:   3.315


  16 in total

Review 1.  An investigation of the benefits of Aquacel Hydrofibre wound dressing.

Authors:  C Williams
Journal:  Br J Nurs       Date:  1999 May 27-Jun 9

2.  Scanning electron microscopic examination of bacterial immobilisation in a carboxymethyl cellulose (AQUACEL) and alginate dressings.

Authors:  M Walker; J A Hobot; G R Newman; P G Bowler
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 12.479

Review 3.  Evaluating and managing open skin wounds: colonization versus infection.

Authors:  Annette B Wysocki
Journal:  AACN Clin Issues       Date:  2002-08

4.  Development of an experimental model of infected skin ulcer.

Authors:  Masahiro Tachi; Shinichi Hirabayashi; Yoshiyuki Yonehara; Yasutoshi Suzuki; Philip Bowler
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Infection control properties of some wound dressings.

Authors:  P G Bowler; S A Jones; B J Davies; E Coyle
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.072

Review 6.  Wound infection. A failure of wound healing caused by an imbalance of bacteria.

Authors:  M C Robson
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 7.  Moist wound healing with occlusive dressings. A clinical review.

Authors:  G A Kannon; A B Garrett
Journal:  Dermatol Surg       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 3.398

Review 8.  Overview of wound healing in a moist environment.

Authors:  F K Field; M D Kerstein
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 9.  Preventing surgical site infections: a surgeon's perspective.

Authors:  R L Nichols
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.883

10.  Use of a fibrous dressing in exuding leg ulcers.

Authors:  S H Armstrong; C V Ruckley
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.066

View more
  9 in total

1.  Topical silver-impregnated dressings and the importance of the dressing technology.

Authors:  Keith Cutting; Richard White; Hans Hoekstra
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 2.  Clinical Biofilms: A Challenging Frontier in Wound Care.

Authors:  Jennifer Hurlow; Kara Couch; Karen Laforet; Laura Bolton; Daniel Metcalf; Phil Bowler
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Clinical safety and effectiveness evaluation of a new antimicrobial wound dressing designed to manage exudate, infection and biofilm.

Authors:  Daniel G Metcalf; David Parsons; Philip G Bowler
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  Testing wound dressings using an in vitro wound model.

Authors:  C Lipp; K Kirker; A Agostinho; G James; P Stewart
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.072

5.  The effect of a silver-containing Hydrofiber dressing on superficial wound bed and bacterial balance of chronic wounds.

Authors:  Pat Coutts; R Gary Sibbald
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.315

6.  A review of the applications of the hydrofiber dressing with silver (Aquacel Ag) in wound care.

Authors:  Yoav Barnea; Jerry Weiss; Eyal Gur
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2010-02-02       Impact factor: 2.423

7.  Enhanced Performance and Mode of Action of a Novel Antibiofilm Hydrofiber® Wound Dressing.

Authors:  David Parsons; Kate Meredith; Victoria J Rowlands; Darryl Short; Daniel G Metcalf; Philip G Bowler
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-11-20       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride-coated versus alginate dressings after pilonidal sinus excision: a randomized clinical trial (SORKYSA study).

Authors:  B Romain; M Mielcarek; J B Delhorme; N Meyer; C Brigand; S Rohr
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-02-04

9.  Comparative study of antibacterial effects and bacterial retentivity of wound dressings.

Authors:  Toshihiro Fujiwara; Ko Hosokawa; Tateki Kubo
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2013-01-24
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.