TY  - INPR
T1  - The Debrisoft® difference challenge
T4  - Subgroup analysis of a survey on the debridement of biofilm-infected wounds
T5  - Presentation at AIUC 2017
LA  - English
AU  - Roes, Claas
AU  - Timmons, John
AU  - Morris, Clare
AU  - Abel, Martin
AB  - INTRUDUCTION
Biofilm, one of the main issues that prevent a chronic wound from healing, is a combination of bacterial and fungal cells, embedded in an extracellular matrix composed of hydrated polymers and debris [1]. Antibiotics are of limited use in biofilm-infected wounds, because biofilm can be polymicrobial [2] and the cells are many times more resistant to it [3]. Therefore the biofilm has to be physically disrupted and removed by debridement. This survey was designed to investigate on a 2 week wound management pathway, including the use of a monofilament fiber debridement pad (Debrisoft® - Lohmann & Rauscher) in combination with an antimicrobial dressing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The survey includes data of 706 professional users located in the UK. The users were asked to treat chronic non-healing wounds by following a 2-weeks wound management pathway including mechanical debridement and an antimicrobial treatment. Clinicians reported on the outcomes and the potential impact on the healing of chronic wounds. Even if the clinicians were asked to follow the wound management pathway, 21% of them were only using the debridement pad without the antimicrobial treatment. This analysis compares these two groups, showing the impact of mechanical debridement in combination with antimicrobial treatment compared to mechanical debridement alone. 

RESULTS
454 (64%) of the users followed the 2-weeks wound management pathway (Group A). 147 (21%) used Debrisoft alone (Group B). 105 (15%) did not give that information. 76% of the treated wounds were static/non-healing and 9% were healing. 15% of the users did not give that information. 94% of all wounds in Group A showed a visible change after 2 weeks, but only 79% in Group B (p<0.0001). For static wounds only 94% of patients in Group A and 85% in Group B (p<0.001) showed improvement and for non-static wounds 97% and 52% respectively (p<0,0001). On a scale of 1 (completely satisfied) to 5 (dissatisfied) the overall clinical outcome was rated 1.543 in Group A and 1.617 in Group B. The healing progression and skin improvement was rated 1,657 in Group A and 1,807 in Group B. The patient satisfaction was rated 1.593 in Group A and 1.778 in Group B.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion the debridement with Debrisoft® shows its capability to put a biofilm-infected non-healing wound into the position to heal. By using mechanical debridement in combination with antimicrobial treatment by following the 2-weeks wound management pathway the positive effect is even more prominent.
CY  - Turin, Italy
Y2  - 1507068000
ER  -