Literature DB >> 27212453

A surfactant-based wound dressing can reduce bacterial biofilms in a porcine skin explant model.

Qingping Yang1, Christelle Larose1, Alessandra C Della Porta1, Gregory S Schultz1, Daniel J Gibson1.   

Abstract

Bacterial biofilms have been found in many, if not all, chronic wounds. Their excessive extracellular matrix secretion and the metabolic changes that they undergo render them highly tolerant of many antibiotic and antimicrobial treatments. Physical removal and/or disruption are a common approach to treating wounds suspected of having bacterial biofilms. While many of these techniques use mechanical energy as the primary means of removal, we have begun to investigate if surfactants could facilitate the removal of bacterial biofilms, or if they might sensitise the biofilms to antimicrobial interventions. We tested a new surfactant-based wound gel on an ex vivo porcine skin explant model infected with a functionally tolerant 3-day biofilm. The wounds were dressed with a surfactant-based gel directly on the wound or with moistened gauze. The wounds were then wiped daily with moistened gauze, and the gel or gauze was re-applied. Each day, an explant from each group was harvested and tested for total viable bacteria counts and viable biofilm-protected bacteria counts. The results show that daily wiping with moistened gauze led to an initial decrease of bacteria, but by day 3, the biofilm had been fully re-established to the same level prior to the beginning of treatment. For the surfactant-based treatment, there was no detectable functional biofilm after the first treatment. The gauze control, which was also subjected to daily wiping, still contained functional biofilms, indicating that this result was not due to wiping alone. The total bacteria in the surfactant-treated explants steadily decreased through day 3, when there were no detectable bacteria, while the wiping-only control bacteria counts remained steady. The use of a moist gauze to wipe the visually apparent slime off of a wound appears to be insufficient to reduce biofilm over a 3-day period. Daily application of the surfactant gel dressing and wiping reduced the biofilm to undetectable levels within 3 days in a skin explant model. A 3-day regimen of dressing the wound model with a surfactant gel followed by gentle removal of the gel by wiping with a moistened gauze appears to be a simple and adequate approach to removing a bacterial biofilm infection in an ex vivo model. Additional clinical evidence is needed to determine if this promising approach can perform the same in clinically infected chronic wounds.
© 2016 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biofilm; Gel dressing; Surfactant

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27212453      PMCID: PMC7950006          DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12619

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


  24 in total

1.  Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a time- dependent therapeutic window.

Authors:  R D Wolcott; K P Rumbaugh; G James; G Schultz; P Phillips; Q Yang; C Watters; P S Stewart; S E Dowd
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.072

Review 2.  Wound bed preparation and a brief history of TIME.

Authors:  Gregory S Schultz; David J Barillo; David W Mozingo; Gloria A Chin
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  The effect of negative pressure wound therapy with periodic instillation using antimicrobial solutions on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm on porcine skin explants.

Authors:  Priscilla L Phillips; Qingping Yang; Gregory S Schultz
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  The molecular basis for toxicity of surfactants in surgical wounds. 1. EO:PO block polymers.

Authors:  R F Edlich; I R Schmolka; M P Prusak; M T Edgerton
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  1973-04       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  Effect of scrubbing and irrigation on staphylococcal and streptococcal counts in contaminated lacerations.

Authors:  J M Howell; H S Dhindsa; T O Stair; B A Edwards
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 6.  Dynamic reciprocity in the wound microenvironment.

Authors:  Gregory S Schultz; Jeffrey M Davidson; Robert S Kirsner; Paul Bornstein; Ira M Herman
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.617

7.  Effectiveness of solutions, techniques and pressure in wound cleansing.

Authors:  Ritin Fernandez; Rhonda Griffiths; Cheryl Ussia
Journal:  JBI Libr Syst Rev       Date:  2004

8.  Pluronic F-68: a promising new skin wound cleanser.

Authors:  G T Rodeheaver; L Kurtz; B J Kircher; R F Edlich
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1980-11       Impact factor: 5.721

9.  Development of a novel ex vivo porcine skin explant model for the assessment of mature bacterial biofilms.

Authors:  Qingping Yang; Priscilla L Phillips; Edith M Sampson; Ann Progulske-Fox; Shouguang Jin; Patrick Antonelli; Gregory S Schultz
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 3.617

10.  Antimicrobial dressing efficacy against mature Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm on porcine skin explants.

Authors:  Priscilla L Phillips; Qingping Yang; Stephen Davis; Edith M Sampson; John I Azeke; Afifa Hamad; Gregory S Schultz
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 3.315

View more
  18 in total

1.  In vitro cellular viability studies on a concentrated surfactant-based wound dressing.

Authors:  Rui Chen; Anne-Marie Salisbury; Steven L Percival
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-03-20       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Surfactants: Role in biofilm management and cellular behaviour.

Authors:  Steven L Percival; Dieter Mayer; Robert S Kirsner; Greg Schultz; Dot Weir; Sashwati Roy; Afsaneh Alavi; Marco Romanelli
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Mode of action of poloxamer-based surfactants in wound care and efficacy on biofilms.

Authors:  Steven L Percival; Rui Chen; Dieter Mayer; Anne-Marie Salisbury
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 4.  Options and Limitations in Clinical Investigation of Bacterial Biofilms.

Authors:  Maria Magana; Christina Sereti; Anastasios Ioannidis; Courtney A Mitchell; Anthony R Ball; Emmanouil Magiorkinis; Stylianos Chatzipanagiotou; Michael R Hamblin; Maria Hadjifrangiskou; George P Tegos
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 5.  Novel Treatment Strategies for Biofilm-Based Infections.

Authors:  Claudia Vuotto; Gianfranco Donelli
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  Testing the influence of surfactant-based wound dressings on proteinase activity.

Authors:  Sunyoung Jeong; Gregory S Schultz; Daniel J Gibson
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 7.  Evidence-Based Review of Antibiofilm Agents for Wound Care.

Authors:  Maximillian A Weigelt; Stephanie A McNamara; Daniela Sanchez; Penelope A Hirt; Robert S Kirsner
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 8.  Advanced Wound Diagnostics: Toward Transforming Wound Care into Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Maximillian A Weigelt; Hadar A Lev-Tov; Marjana Tomic-Canic; W David Lee; Ryan Williams; David Strasfeld; Robert S Kirsner; Ira M Herman
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Efficacy of a topical concentrated surfactant gel on microbial communities in non-healing diabetic foot ulcers with chronic biofilm infections: A proof-of-concept study.

Authors:  Matthew Malone; Michael Radzieta; Saskia Schwarzer; Slade O Jensen; Lawrence A Lavery
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 3.315

10.  A surfactant polymer dressing potentiates antimicrobial efficacy in biofilm disruption.

Authors:  Piya Das Ghatak; Shomita S Mathew-Steiner; Priyanka Pandey; Sashwati Roy; Chandan K Sen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.