Many of the modern wound dressings are designed to absorb large volumes of exudate and can absorb an amount of moisture of up to 15–20 times their own weight ( 6). Additional factors such as thermal insulation, maintenance of circulation and activation of leucocytes, suppression of tissue necrosis and change of pH in the closed environment are all related to this lower rate of infection under moisture‐retentive dressings ( 5). However, experimental studies have shown no increase in infection indeed, they have clarified that the infection rate associated with modern wound dressings is somewhat lower than that observed with ointments and gauze ( 3, 4). Because colonisation by bacteria accompanies almost all cases of chronic skin ulcers, use of modern wound dressings was initially associated with concern about the potential risk of infection caused by sealing the wound tightly and creating a moist environment. This treatment accelerates wound healing by keeping the wound surface in a moist environment and absorbing exudate ( 2). Several decades have passed since the introduction of modern wound dressings for skin ulcers into the clinical setting. Furthermore, postoperative infection of surgical wounds necessitates prolonged periods of hospitalisation ( 1). Infection of diabetic ulcers can have serious consequences, posing challenges in terms of high morbidity and medical expenses and sometimes requiring leg amputation. Patients suffering from chronic skin ulcers, represented by chronic leg ulcers and pressure ulcers, often require hospitalisation when infection occurs. 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. Bacterial counts in tissue showed no significant change with respect to pathogen or the type of dressing used. AQUACEL ® Hydrofiber ® dressing was most effective in its ability to retain both Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (p < 0♰5). Statistical analyses were performed using one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for replicated measures combined with Duncan's multiple comparison test. Each dressing was tested on each of 10 wounds contaminated with each bacterium. Bacterial counts in tissue were also determined. 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. Each dressing was then divided into two pieces. AQUACEL ® Hydrofiber ®, Kaltostat ® or Sorbsan ® were applied to the contaminated wounds for 12 h. Wound surfaces were inoculated with either Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a concentration of 1♵ × 10 6 colony‐forming units per wound. We studied the bacterial retention capacity of alginate and carboxymethylcellulose dressings, using an infected skin ulcer model on the backs of rats. 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |