Literature DB >> 21187812

Antimicrobial activity of clinically used antiseptics and wound irrigating agents in combination with wound dressings.

Tobias Hirsch1, Simin Limoochi-Deli, Armin Lahmer, Frank Jacobsen, Ole Goertz, Hans-Ulrich Steinau, Hans-Martin Seipp, Lars Steinstraesser.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A primary strategy for preventing and treating wound infection in chronic wounds is the use of topical antiseptics and wound irrigating agents. However, their interaction with commonly used wound dressings has not yet been investigated. In this study, the authors analyzed the antimicrobial activity of antiseptics and wound irrigating agents used with commercially available wound dressings.
METHODS: Five clinically used antiseptics and wound irrigating agents (Prontosan, Lavasept, Braunol, Octenisept, and Betaisodona) were tested in the presence or absence of 42 wound dressings against Staphylococcus aureus. The determination of antibacterial activity was performed by disk diffusion assay.
RESULTS: Povidone-iodine-based products showed sufficient antimicrobial activity in 64 to 78 percent of the combinations assessed (p > 0.01). The octenidine derivate Octenisept showed sufficient antimicrobial activity in 54 percent of combinations. Polyhexamethylene biguanide derivatives demonstrated sufficient antimicrobial activity in 32 percent of the combinations.
CONCLUSION: This study revealed that commonly used wound dressings dramatically reduce antibacterial activity of clinically used antiseptics and wound irrigating agents in vitro.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21187812     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318208d00f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  7 in total

1.  Antiseptics in surgery.

Authors:  Tobias Hirsch; Hans-Martin Seipp; Frank Jacobsen; Ole Goertz; Hans-Ulrich Steinau; Lars Steinstraesser
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2010-05-27

2.  In vitro Activity of Antimicrobial Wound Dressings on P. aeruginosa Wound Biofilm.

Authors:  Ewa Klara Stuermer; Isabell Plattfaut; Michael Dietrich; Florian Brill; Andreas Kampe; Vanessa Wiencke; Anna Ulatowski; Maria Geffken; Julian-Dario Rembe; Ella Alexandrovna Naumova; Sebastian Eike Debus; Ralf Smeets
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 5.640

3.  Biocide Selective TolC-Independent Efflux Pumps in Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  Carmine J Slipski; George G Zhanel; Denice C Bay
Journal:  J Membr Biol       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 1.843

Review 4.  Burn injury.

Authors:  Marc G Jeschke; Margriet E van Baar; Mashkoor A Choudhry; Kevin K Chung; Nicole S Gibran; Sarvesh Logsetty
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 52.329

5.  Antibiofilm Efficacy of Polihexanide, Octenidine and Sodium Hypochlorite/Hypochlorous Acid Based Wound Irrigation Solutions against Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and a Multispecies Biofilm.

Authors:  Anne-Marie Salisbury; Marc Mullin; Rui Chen; Steven L Percival
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  Bacterial growth kinetics under a novel flexible methacrylate dressing serving as a drug delivery vehicle for antiseptics.

Authors:  Christina Forstner; Johannes Leitgeb; Rupert Schuster; Verena Dosch; Axel Kramer; Keith F Cutting; David J Leaper; Ojan Assadian
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 5.923

7.  Effect on Microbial Growth of a New Skin Protectant Formulation.

Authors:  Joseph Stoffel; Stéphanie F Bernatchez
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 4.730

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.