Cited by 76Wound Healing and TreatmentsBurn Injury Management and OutcomesSurgical site infection prevention

Effective method to remove wound bacteria: comparison of various debridement modalities in an in vivo porcine model

Nusbaum, Aron G., Gil, Joel, Rippy, Marian K., Warne, Brian, Valdes, Jose, Claro, Abel, Davis, Stephen C.·2012·Journal of Surgical Research

Abstract

Background Debridement is one of the crucial steps for successful wound care. In addition to removing necrotic tissue, debridement has been shown to reduce wound-associated bacteria that delay healing. Using an in vivo porcine model, we compared the effects of various methods of debridement, including hydrosurgery and plasma-mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation (PBRA), on bacterial removal and wound healing.Methods One hundred thirty-five deep dermal wounds were inoculated with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and covered with a polyurethane dressing for 48 h to allow for biofilm formation. Wounds were then treated with either PBRA (at two settings), hydrosurgery, sharp debridement, or no debridement. Biopsies were collected for microbiology and histologic assessment on d 0, 2, 9, and 21 post-treatment.Results All treatment groups showed a statistically significant reduction in MRSA counts relative to no debridement at all times points (P < 0.05). PBRA at a maximum setting had the lowest MRSA counts at all recovery times and, compared with all other treatment groups, a statistically significant difference was observed on d 21 (P < 0.05). No detrimental effects on the healing process were noted with any of the debridement methods.Conclusion While sharp debridement has been established as the traditional gold standard for rapid removal of necrotic, infected tissue, our results suggest that novel debridement modalities show clinical promise for the treatment of chronic ulcers and burn wounds, especially when bacteria are present.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jss.2011.11.1040

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nusbaum, A. G., Gil, J., Rippy, M. K., Warne, B., Valdes, J., Claro, A., & Davis, S. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Good Samaritan Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Davis, Stephen C.
Venue
Journal of Surgical Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
176
Issue
2
Pages
701-707
ISSN
0022-4804 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032992088
Cited by
75
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Surgical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
Keywords
wound debridement, bacterial removal, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA biofilm, hydrosurgery, sharp debridement, wound healing, chronic wounds, burn wounds, porcine model
MeSH terms
Animals, Debridement, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Fibrosis, Hydrotherapy, Leukocytes, Necrosis, Staphylococcal Skin Infections, Swine, Wound Healing, Wounds and Injuries, Catheter Ablation, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review