Cited by 164Wound Healing and TreatmentsDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous DiseasesDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management

Bacterial colonization and healing of venous leg ulcers

Madsen, SøRen Munk, Westh, Henrik, Danielsen, Lis, Rosdahl, Vibeke Thamdrup·1996·APMIS

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate a possible influence of selected bacterial species on healing of venous leg ulcers. Fifty‐nine patients with venous leg ulcers were followed via frequent semiquantitative culture of bacteria from the ulcer surface and determination of the ulcer area over a period of 180 days. Occurrences of cellulitis were treated with systemic antibiotics. There was a significant difference in relative areas on days 90 and 180 when ulcers with growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were compared to those without (p=0.0080 and 0.0133, respectively). Ulcers with P. aeruginosa were characterized to a great extent by enlargement in contrast to those without. Ulcers with growth of Staphylococcus aureus or haemolytic streptococci healed significantly more slowly than those without when relative areas were compared on day 180 (p=0.0079 and 0.0492, respectively). Complete healing within the observation period of 180 days was observed in 10.5% of patients with P. aeruginosa and 35% of those without (p=0.0631), in 21.6% of patients with S. aureus and 62.5% of those without (p=0.0278), and in 10.5% of patients with haemolytic streptococci and 35% of those without (p = 0.0631). The initial areas of ulcers colonized with P. aeruginosa or 5. aureus were significantly larger than those without, but no significant correlation between initial areas and ulcer healing was revealed. Conclusion: Our results suggest that P. aeruginosa in venous leg ulcers can induce ulcer enlargement and/or cause a healing delay. The results also suggest a healing delay caused by 5. aureus and haemolytic streptococci. However, conclusions have to be treated with caution since P. aeruginosa was found in combination with haemolytic streptococci in 15.3% of the patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1996.tb04955.x

Cites

13 of 13 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Madsen, S. M., Westh, H., Danielsen, L., & Rosdahl, V. T.
Affiliations
  • Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
  • Statens Serum Institut (DK)
Corresponding author
Danielsen, Lis
Venue
APMIS
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-07-08
Volume
104
Issue
7-8
Pages
895-899
ISSN
  • 0903-4641 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0463
OpenAlex
W1990659092
Cited by
164
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Apmis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Keywords
venous leg ulcers, bacterial colonization, ulcer healing, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, hemolytic streptococci, cellulitis, wound infection
MeSH terms
Bacterial Infections, Cellulitis, Humans, Pseudomonas Infections, Staphylococcal Infections, Streptococcal Infections, Varicose Ulcer, Wound Healing

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