| Literature DB >> 29949930 |
Elizabeth Gianino1, Craig Miller2, Jordon Gilmore3.
Abstract
Given their severity and non-healing nature, diabetic chronic wounds are a significant concern to the 30.3 million Americans diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (2015). Peripheral arterial diseases, neuropathy, and infection contribute to the development of these wounds, which lead to an increased incidence of lower extremity amputations. Early recognition, debridement, offloading, and controlling infection are imperative for timely treatment. However, wound characterization and treatment are highly subjective and based largely on the experience of the treating clinician. Many wound dressings have been designed to address particular clinical presentations, but a prescriptive method is lacking for identifying the particular state of chronic, non-healing wounds. The authors suggest that recent developments in wound dressings and biosensing may allow for the quantitative, real-time representation of the wound environment, including exudate levels, pathogen concentrations, and tissue regeneration. Development of such sensing capability could enable more strategic, personalized care at the onset of ulceration and limit the infection leading to amputation. This review presents an overview of the pathophysiology of diabetic chronic wounds, a brief summary of biomaterial wound dressing treatment options, and biosensor development for biomarker sensing in the wound environment.Entities:
Keywords: biochemical sensor; chronic wounds; diabetes; smart wound dressing
Year: 2018 PMID: 29949930 PMCID: PMC6163915 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering5030051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Major classification methods.
| Wagner-Meggitt | University of Texas | PEDIS | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Pain only, no open ulcer | Pre-ulceration | |
|
| Superficial ulcer | Superficial wound | Skin intact, no infection or loss of sensation |
|
| Deep ulcer | Wound penetrating to tendon or capsule | Superficial ulcer with infection at the surface and loss of sensation |
|
| Deep ulceration with osteomyelitis | Wound penetrating to bone or joint | Ulcer reaching the fascia, muscle, and tendon, fasciitis and septic arthritis likely |
|
| Localized Gangrene | Ulcer depth reaching the bone or joint, SIRS | |
|
| Extensive Gangrene, Amputation likely | ||
|
| [ | [ | [ |
Summary of Polymer-based Wound Dressings.
| Polymer | Advantages | Disadvantages | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose | 1. Readily available with low cost | 1. Requires additional antimicrobial substances | [ |
| Chitosan | 1. Fabricated in a gelatin of film-like material | 1. Extensive swelling in water | [ |
| Collagen and Gelatin | 1. Promotes tissue granulation and angiogenesis | 1. May not be absorptive in gelatin form, especially for wounds with excessive exudate | [ |
| Hyaluronic Acid | 1. Lubricative and water absorptive | 1. Only MMWHA enhances wound repair | [ |
| Poly(lactide-co-glycolide) | 1. FDA approved for drug delivery, suture applications | 1. Requires additional antimicrobial substances | [ |
| Polyurethanes | 1. Semipermeable membrane that prevents bacteria from entering | 1. Need composite dressings in order to provide contact layer and waterproof properties | [ |
| Poly(ethylene glycol) | 1. Hydrophilic, flexible and compatible qualities | 1. Adhesiveness might damage granulation tissue | [ |
| Polycaprolactone | 1. FDA approved for suture applications | 1. Lack of antimicrobial properties | [ |
Figure 1Collagen thread mesh imaged using optical microscopy (a); reinforced collagen sponge with collagen mesh (b); Collagen sponge reinforced by collagen mesh using SEM micrographs (c); and the incorporation of fibroblasts growing within collagen mesh using SEM micrographs (d). Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering reference [50]. Copyright 2008.
Figure 2SEM image of PU electrospun fibers (a) and the Tegaderm™ wound dressing (b). Reprinted by permission from John Wiley and Sons: Journal of Biomedical Materials Research reference [61] Copyright 2003.
Figure 3Schematic of the smart wound dressing depicting the major elements. Reprinted by permission from John Wiley and Sons: Advanced Healthcare Materials reference [78] Copyright 2016.
Biomarkers associated with chronic wound healing.
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| Cytokines (IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α) | Elevated levels of Cytokine | [ |
| Nitric Oxide | Decreased levels of NO | [ |
| Matrix Metalloproteinase | Increased protease activity | [ |
| Oxygen | Higher probability for ischemia due to decreased oxygen levels | [ |
| Bacteria | Bacteria concentration levels are higher indicating extent of infection. | [ |
| Wound pH | Remains more alkalotic for extended period of time | [ |
| Uric Acid | Decreased levels due to bacteria | [ |
| Reactive Oxygen Species | Increased levels due to oxidative stress | [ |
| Gene Expression | Increase in bacterial housekeeping genes; decrease in ulcer housekeeping genes. | [ |
| Growth Factors | Decreased level (i.e., PDGF) | [ |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| Bioelectrical Impedance | Phase angle, resistance, and reactance are all decreased | [ |
| Pressure | Increased pressure | [ |
| Temperature | Increased temperature | [ |
Sensor Used to Detect Biomarkers in Chronic Wounds.
| Sensor | Sensitivity/Range | Biomarker | Method | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELISA MMP Sensor | 0.1–100 mg/mL | MMP-9 | Electrochemical | [ |
| Disposable MMP-9 Sensor | 200 mg/mL | MMP-9 | Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy | [ |
| Smart Bandage UA Sensor | 100 µM of UA | Uric Acid | Electrochemical | [ |
| Carbon fiber sensor | 0–500 µM | Uric Acid | Electrochemical | [ |
| Wearable enzymatic sensor | 0.14 µ/M-cm2 Range: 14 µM | Uric Acid | Electrochemical | [ |
| Poly-tryptophan Carbon Fiber pH Sensor | pH of 3–8 (±0.1) | pH | Voltammetry | [ |
| Flexible Hydrogel pH sensor | pH of 5–8 (±0.2) | pH | Fluorescent Spectroscopy/Image processing | [ |
| Hydrogel pH sensor | pH of 1–8 | pH | Electrical (LC circuit) and Chemical | [ |
| Smart Bandage | Gram-Negative Bacteria, shift in wavelength by 3–4 nm | Gram-negative,-positive, | Electrochemical/Optical Microcavity | [ |
| Intelligent Hydrogel Dressing | Contrast of approximately 20,000 and 35,000 fluorescence/a.u. of | Bacteria ( | Electrochemical/Fluorescent Spectroscopy | [ |
| Hemin-Functionalized FET NO Sensor | 0.3 nm of NO | Nitric Oxide | Bio-electrical | [ |
| Oxygen Bandage Sensor | 0.4–0.6 mA | Oxygen | Bio-electrical | [ |
| Screen Printed Impedance Sensor | 5 × 107 CFU/mL of |
| Electrical | [ |
| Flexible Pt thermistor | 2.7 Ω/°C | Temperature | Electrical | [ |
| Wireless thermistor | 17 Ω/°C at 35 °C | Temperature | Electrical | [ |
| Flexible Low Power Sensor | 0.2 °C temperature difference, 0.5 mmHg pressure, 3.0% RH | Moisture, Temperature, Pressure | Electrical | [ |
| Inkjet Printed Smart Bandage | ±2.3% capacitance, 8% quality factor, ±2.6% resistance | Blood, pH, Resistance | Electrical (Capacitance and Resistance) | [ |
| Flexible Sensor Array | 100–50 KΩ at 100–1 MHz | Impedance | Electrical | [ |
Figure 4NO hemin-functionalized sensor. (a) PDMS channel with gold gate, source, and drain electrodes; (b) NO selective channel. Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Nature Communications reference [108]. Copyright 2013.
Figure 5Flexible impedance sensor made via Inkjet Printing. Reprinted with permission from Springer Nature: Nature Communications reference [115] Copyright 2015.