OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not there are any significant differences in the effects of wound dressings on bacterial bioburden. METHOD: A selection of non-occlusive, non-adhesive dressings was tested for their effect on bacterial bioburden. The dressings selected included two dressings with antimicrobial properties (one containing silver and one containing PHMB), a cotton-based dressing enclosed in a perforated sleeve of poly(ethylene terephthalate), a carboxymethyl cellulose-based dressing, a fibre-free alginate dressing, and a 12-ply 100% cotton gauze. Using the colony-drip flow reactor (DFR) model, a meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm was grown underneath a dressing sample. Biofilm growth was examined via plate counts, fluorescent microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The dressings containing antimicrobial agents had the greatest effect on bacterial load. In the MRSA experiments, both antimicrobial dressings produced lower bacteria counts than the other dressings (p<0.001), while in the P. aeruginosa experiments, only the silver-containing sample had fewer bacteria (p<0.0001). However, neither antimicrobial dressing was able to completely eradicate the bacteria when testing with either microorganism. CONCLUSION: The results presented herein illustrate that bacteria can grow unchallenged within the dressing environment and that an antimicrobial dressing can limit this bacterial growth. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not there are any significant differences in the effects of wound dressings on bacterial bioburden. METHOD: A selection of non-occlusive, non-adhesive dressings was tested for their effect on bacterial bioburden. The dressings selected included two dressings with antimicrobial properties (one containing silver and one containing PHMB), a cotton-based dressing enclosed in a perforated sleeve of poly(ethylene terephthalate), a carboxymethyl cellulose-based dressing, a fibre-free alginate dressing, and a 12-ply 100% cotton gauze. Using the colony-drip flow reactor (DFR) model, a meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm was grown underneath a dressing sample. Biofilm growth was examined via plate counts, fluorescent microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The dressings containing antimicrobial agents had the greatest effect on bacterial load. In the MRSA experiments, both antimicrobial dressings produced lower bacteria counts than the other dressings (p<0.001), while in the P. aeruginosa experiments, only the silver-containing sample had fewer bacteria (p<0.0001). However, neither antimicrobial dressing was able to completely eradicate the bacteria when testing with either microorganism. CONCLUSION: The results presented herein illustrate that bacteria can grow unchallenged within the dressing environment and that an antimicrobial dressing can limit this bacterial growth. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.
Authors: Thomas Bjarnsholt; Klaus Kirketerp-Møller; Peter Østrup Jensen; Kit G Madsen; Richard Phipps; Karen Krogfelt; Niels Høiby; Michael Givskov Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Stephen C Davis; Carlos Ricotti; Alex Cazzaniga; Esperanza Welsh; William H Eaglstein; Patricia M Mertz Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Joseph J Castellano; Susan M Shafii; Francis Ko; Guillermo Donate; Terry E Wright; Rudolph J Mannari; Wyatt G Payne; David J Smith; Martin C Robson Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: J Woods; L Boegli; K R Kirker; A M Agostinho; A M Durch; E Delancey Pulcini; P S Stewart; G A James Journal: J Appl Microbiol Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 3.772
Authors: Kenneth S Brandenburg; Diego F Calderon; Patricia R Kierski; Amanda L Brown; Nihar M Shah; Nicholas L Abbott; Michael J Schurr; Christopher J Murphy; Jonathan F McAnulty; Charles J Czuprynski Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.617