Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Air contamination following hydrodebridement of wounds

Discussion in 'Diabetic Foot & Wound Management' started by JFAR, May 9, 2009.

  1. JFAR

    JFAR Active Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Hydrodebridement of wounds: effectiveness in reducing wound bacterial contamination and potential for air bacterial contamination

    Frank L Bowling, Daryl S Stickings, Valerie Edwards-Jones, David G Armstrong, Andrew JM Boulton

    Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2009, 2:13 (8 May 2009)

    Abstract

    Background
    The purpose of this study was to assess the level of air contamination with bacteria after surgical hydrodebridement and to determine the effectiveness of hydro surgery on bacterial reduction of a simulated infected wound.

    Methods
    Four porcine samples were scored then infected with a broth culture containing a variety of organisms and incubated at 37degreesC for 24 hours. The infected samples were then debrided with the hydro surgery tool (Versajet, Smith and Nephew, Largo, Florida, USA). Samples were taken for microbiology, histology and scanning electron microscopy pre-infection, post infection and post debridement. Air bacterial contamination was evaluated before, during and after debridement by using active and passive methods; for active sampling the SAS-Super 90 air sampler was used, for passive sampling settle plates were located at set distances around the clinic room.

    Results
    There was no statistically significant reduction in bacterial contamination of the porcine samples post Hydrodebridement. Analysis of the passive sampling showed a significant (p<0.001) increase in microbial counts post Hydrodebridement. Levels ranging from 950 colony forming units per meter cubed (CFUs/m3) to 16780 CFUs/m3 were observed with active sampling of the air whilst using hydro surgery equipment compared with a basal count of 582 CFUs/m3. During removal of the wound dressing, a significant increase was observed relative to basal counts (p<0.05). Microbial load of the air samples was still significantly raised 1 hour post-therapy.

    Conclusions
    The results suggest a significant increase in bacterial air contamination both by active sampling and passive sampling. We believe that action might be taken to mitigate fallout in the settings in which this technique is used.
     
Loading...

Share This Page