-
American Journal of Surgery May 2004Debridement is defined as the removal of nonviable material, foreign bodies, and poorly healing tissue from a wound. Although surgeons recognize the importance of... (Review)
Review
Debridement is defined as the removal of nonviable material, foreign bodies, and poorly healing tissue from a wound. Although surgeons recognize the importance of debridement, few data have been generated in randomized trials to support its use. Debridement provides for removal of tissue with the highest bacterial count, reliable cultures, and identification of osteomyelitis. The most direct form of debridement is surgical excision. For patients who are poor candidates for surgical debridement or have limited access to a surgeon, other forms of debridement (including mechanical, autolytic, enzymatic, and biologic) can be used. Although operative debridement is best performed by those with surgical training, the other forms of debridement can be accomplished by other allied health care professionals. Debridement remains an important adjunct to good wound care, but questions of what type, how much, and how often it should be performed remain unresolved.
Topics: Debridement; Humans; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 15147995
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00307-6 -
Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and... 2008Clinical experience and existing research strongly support debridement as a necessary component of wound bed preparation when slough or eschar is present. Multiple... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clinical experience and existing research strongly support debridement as a necessary component of wound bed preparation when slough or eschar is present. Multiple techniques are available, but the indications for each technique and their efficacy are not clearly established. There is little evidence to guide the clinician in the selection of a safe, effective debridement method for the patient with a chronic wound.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to identify evidence related to the efficacy of enzymatic debriding agents collagenase and papain-urea in the removal of necrotic tissue from the wound bed and its impact on wound healing.
SEARCH STRATEGY
A systematic review of electronic databases was undertaken using key words: (1) debridement, (2) enzymatic debridement, (3) collagenases, (4) papain, (5) urea, and (6) papain-urea. All prospective and retrospective studies that compared enzymatic debridement using collagenase or papain-urea (with and without chlorophyllin) on pressure ulcers, leg ulcers, or burn wounds were included in the review. All studies that met inclusion criteria and were published between January 1960 and February 2008 were included.
RESULTS
Collagenase ointment is more effective than placebo (inactivated ointment or petrolatum ointment) for debridement of necrotic tissue from pressure ulcers, leg ulcers, and partial-thickness burn wounds. Limited evidence suggests that a papain-urea-based ointment removes necrotic material from pressure ulcers more rapidly than collagenase ointment, but progress toward wound healing appears to be equivocal. Limited evidence suggests that treatment of partial-thickness burn wounds in children with collagenase ointment may require an equivocal time to treatment with surgical excision and that combination treatment may reduce the need for surgical excision. Insufficient evidence was found to determine whether collagenase ointment removes necrotic tissue from leg ulcers more or less rapidly than autolytic debridement enhanced by a polyacrylate dressing.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Enzymatic debriding agents are an effective alternative for removing necrotic material from pressure ulcers, leg ulcers, and partial-thickness wounds. They may be used to debride both adherent slough and eschar. Enzymatic agents may be used as the primary technique for debridement in certain cases, especially when alternative methods such as surgical or conservative sharp wound debridement (CSWD) are not feasible owing to bleeding disorders or other considerations. Many clinicians will select enzymes when CSWD is not an option. Clinical experience strongly suggests that combined therapy, such as initial surgical debridement followed by serial debridement using an enzymatic agent or enzymatic debridement along with serial CSWD, is effective for many patients with chronic, indolent, or nonhealing wounds.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Autolysis; Bandages; Chronic Disease; Clinical Nursing Research; Collagenases; Debridement; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Necrosis; Papain; Patient Selection; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Research Design; Skin Care; Treatment Outcome; Urea; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 18496083
DOI: 10.1097/01.WON.0000319125.21854.78 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Mar 2023The incidence of necrotising soft-tissue infections has increased during recent decades such that most physicians might see at least one case of these potentially... (Review)
Review
The incidence of necrotising soft-tissue infections has increased during recent decades such that most physicians might see at least one case of these potentially life-threatening infections in their career. Despite advances in care, necrotising soft-tissue infections are still associated with high morbidity and mortality, underlining a need for continued education of the medical community. In particular, failure to suspect necrotising soft-tissue infections, fuelled by poor awareness of the disease, promotes delays to first surgical debridement, amplifying disease severity and adverse outcomes. This Review will focus on practical approaches to management of necrotising soft-tissue infections including prompt recognition, initiation of specific management, exploratory surgery, and aftercare. Increased alertness and awareness for these infections should improve time to diagnosis and early referral to specialised centres, with improvement in the prognosis of necrotising soft-tissue infections.
Topics: Humans; Fasciitis, Necrotizing; Debridement; Soft Tissue Infections; Prognosis; Referral and Consultation
PubMed: 36252579
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00583-7 -
The Veterinary Clinics of North... Nov 2017The importance of initial wound classification and daily reevaluation of wound stage cannot be understated. Products available to enhance healing are categorized based... (Review)
Review
The importance of initial wound classification and daily reevaluation of wound stage cannot be understated. Products available to enhance healing are categorized based on the stage of wound healing to which they exert their effects. After patient stability has been verified, thorough debridement is critical in order to create an environment conducive for healing. The wound environment of acute and chronic wounds differs greatly, often requiring different management approaches.
Topics: Animals; Debridement; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28781059
DOI: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2017.06.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2008Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue will expedite wound healing. There... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue will expedite wound healing. There are numerous methods available but no consensus on which one is most effective for surgical wounds.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to determine the effect of different methods of debridement on the rate of debridement and healing of surgical wounds.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We developed a search strategy to search the following electronic databases: Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 3/3/08) , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2008, issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to February Week 3 2008 ), EMBASE (1980 to 2008 Week 09) and CINHAL (1982 to February Week 4 2008). We checked the citations within obtained studies to identify additional papers and also relevant conference proceedings. We contacted manufactures of wound debridement agents to ascertain the existence of published, unpublished and ongoing trials. Our search was not limited by language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT) with outcomes including at least one of the following: time to complete debridement, or time to complete healing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed the abstracts and titles obtained from the search, two extracted data independently using a standardised extraction sheet, and two independently assessed methodological quality. One author was involved in all stages of the data collection and extraction process, thus ensuring continuity.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs were eligible for inclusion; all compared treatments for infected surgical wounds and reported time required to achieve a clean wound bed (complete debridement). One trial compared an enzymatic agent (Streptokinase/streptodornase) with saline-soaked dressings and reported the time to complete debridement. Four of the trials compared the effectiveness of dextranomer beads or paste with other products (different comparator in each trial) to achieve complete debridement. Meta analysis was not possible due to the unique comparisons within each trial. One trial reported that dextranomer achieved a clean wound bed significantly more quickly than Eusol, and one trial comparing enzymatic debridement with saline-soaked dressings reported that the enzyme treated wounds were cleaned more quickly. However methodological quality was poor in these two trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of large, high quality published RCTs evaluating debridement per se or comparing different methods of debridement for surgical wounds, to guide clinical decision making.
Topics: Debridement; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 18646139
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006214.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Venous ulcers (also known as varicose or venous stasis ulcers) are a chronic, recurring and debilitating condition that affects up to 1% of the population. Best practice... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Venous ulcers (also known as varicose or venous stasis ulcers) are a chronic, recurring and debilitating condition that affects up to 1% of the population. Best practice documents and expert opinion suggests that the removal of devitalised tissue from venous ulcers (debridement) by any one of six methods helps to promote healing. However, to date there has been no review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support this.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of different debriding methods or debridement versus no debridement, on the rate of debridement and wound healing in venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In February 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. In addition we handsearched conference proceedings, journals not cited in MEDLINE, and the bibliographies of all retrieved publications to identify potential studies. We made contact with the pharmaceutical industry to enquire about any completed studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs, either published or unpublished, which compared two methods of debridement or compared debridement with no debridement. We presented study results in a narrative form, as meta-analysis was not possible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Independently, two review authors completed all study selection, data extraction and assessment of trial quality; resolution of disagreements was completed by a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 RCTs involving 715 participants. Eight RCTs evaluated autolytic debridement and included the following agents or dressings: biocellulose wound dressing (BWD), non-adherent dressing, honey gel, hydrogel (gel formula), hydrofibre dressing, hydrocolloid dressings, dextranomer beads, Edinburgh University Solution of Lime (EUSOL) and paraffin gauze. Two RCTs evaluated enzymatic preparations and one evaluated biosurgical debridement. No RCTs evaluated surgical, sharp or mechanical methods of debridement, or debridement versus no debridement. Most trials were at a high risk of bias.Three RCTs assessed the number of wounds completely debrided. All three of these trials compared two different methods of autolytic debridement (234 participants), with two studies reporting statistically significant results: one study (100 participants) reported that 40/50 (80%) ulcers treated with dextranomer beads and 7/50 (14%) treated with EUSOL achieved complete debridement (RR 5.71, 95% CI 2.84 to 11.52); while the other trial (86 participants) reported the number of ulcers completely debrided as 31/46 (76%) for hydrogel versus 18/40 (45%) for paraffin gauze (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99). One study (48 participants) reported that by 12 weeks, 15/18 (84%) ulcers treated with BWD had achieved a 75% to 100% clean, granulating wound bed versus 4/15 (26%) treated with non-adherent petrolatum emulsion-impregnated gauze.Four trials assessed the mean time to achieve debridement: one (86 participants) compared two autolytic debridement methods, two compared autolytic methods with enzymatic debridement (71 participants), and the last (12 participants) compared autolytic with biosurgical debridement; none of the results achieved statistical significance.Two trials that assessed autolytic debridement methods reported the number of wounds healed at 12 weeks. One trial (108 participants) reported that 24/54 (44%) ulcers treated with honey healed versus 18/54 (33%) treated with hydrogel (RR (adjusted for baseline wound diameter) 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; P value 0.037). The second trial (48 participants) reported that 7/25 (28%) ulcers treated with BWD healed versus 7/23 (30%) treated with non-adherent dressing.Reduction in wound size was assessed in five trials (444 participants) in which two autolytic methods were compared. Results were statistically significant in one three-armed trial (153 participants) when cadexomer iodine was compared to paraffin gauze (mean difference 24.9 cm², 95% CI 7.27 to 42.53, P value 0.006) and hydrocolloid compared to paraffin gauze (mean difference 23.8 cm², 95% CI 5.48 to 42.12, P value 0.01). A second trial that assessed reduction in wound size based its results on median differences and, at four weeks, produced a statistically significantly result that favoured honey over hydrogel (P value < 0.001). The other three trials reported no statistically significant results for reduction in wound size, although one trial reported that the mean percentage reduction in wound area was greater at six and 12 weeks for BWD versus a non-adherent dressing (44% versus 24% week 6; 74% versus 54% week 12).Pain was assessed in six trials (544 participants) that compared two autolytic debridement methods, but the results were not statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported in any trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to suggest that actively debriding a venous leg ulcer has a clinically significant impact on healing. The overall small number of participants, low number of studies and lack of meta-analysis in this review precludes any strong conclusions of benefit. Comparisons of different autolytic agents (hydrogel versus paraffin gauze; Dextranomer beads versus EUSOL and BWD versus non-adherent dressings) and Larvae versus hydrogel all showed statistically significant results for numbers of wounds debrided. Larger trials with follow up to healing are required.
Topics: Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Borates; Debridement; Humans; Hydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Hypochlorite; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26368002
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008599.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2010Foot ulceration is thought to affect 15% of people with diabetes at some time in their lives. Debridement is widely regarded as an effective intervention to speed up... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Foot ulceration is thought to affect 15% of people with diabetes at some time in their lives. Debridement is widely regarded as an effective intervention to speed up ulcer healing. The most effective method is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of debridement interventions on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
SEARCH STRATEGY
For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2009); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2; Ovid MEDLINE - 1950 to June Week 3 2009; Ovid EMBASE - 1980 to 2009 Week 25 and Ovid CINAHL - 1982 to June Week 3 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any method of debriding diabetic foot ulcers and measuring complete healing or rate of healing. There was no restriction on articles/trials based on language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction and assessment of study quality were undertaken by one review author and checked by an Editor of the Wounds Group.
MAIN RESULTS
Six RCTs of debridement were identified: four assessed hydrogels, with an additional study evaluating larval therapy against hydrogel and one evaluated surgical debridement. Pooling the three RCTs which compared hydrogel with gauze or standard care suggested that hydrogels are significantly more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers (Relative Risk 1.84, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)1.3 to 2.61). Surgical debridement showed no significant benefit over standard treatment. One small trial suggested that larvae resulted in a more than 50% reduction in wound area compared with hydrogel. Other debridement methods such as enzyme preparations or polysaccharide beads have not been evaluated in diabetic foot ulcers.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to suggest that hydrogel increases the healing rate of diabetic foot ulcers compared with gauze dressings or standard care and larval therapy resulted in significantly greater reduction in wound area than hydrogel. More research is needed to evaluate the effects of a range of widely used debridement methods and of debridement per se.
Topics: Animals; Bandages; Combined Modality Therapy; Debridement; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Hydrogels; Larva; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing
PubMed: 20091547
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003556.pub2 -
The Orthopedic Clinics of North America Jan 2017The optimal treatment of open fractures continues to be an area of debate in the orthopedic literature. Recent research has challenged the dictum that open fractures... (Review)
Review
The optimal treatment of open fractures continues to be an area of debate in the orthopedic literature. Recent research has challenged the dictum that open fractures should be debrided within 6 hours of injury. However, the expedient administration of intravenous antibiotics remains of paramount importance in infection prevention. Multiple factors, including fracture severity, thoroughness of debridement, time to initial treatment, and antibiotic administration, among other variables, contribute to the incidence of infection and complicate identifying an optimal time to debridement.
Topics: Debridement; Fractures, Open; Humans; Operative Time; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 27886680
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2016.08.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2011Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue will expedite wound healing. There... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue will expedite wound healing. There are numerous methods available but no consensus on which one is most effective for surgical wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of different methods of debridement on the rate of debridement and healing of surgical wounds.
SEARCH STRATEGY
For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 13 April 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (2007 to March Week 5 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, April 11, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (2007 to 2011 Week 14); and EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 8 April 2011).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with outcomes including at least one of the following: time to complete debridement or time to complete healing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the abstracts and titles obtained from the search, extracted data independently using a standardised extraction sheet and independently assessed methodological quality. One review author was involved in all stages of the data collection and extraction process, thus ensuring continuity.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs (159 participants) were eligible for inclusion; all compared treatments for infected surgical wounds and reported time required to achieve a clean wound bed (complete debridement). One trial compared an enzymatic agent (streptokinase/streptodornase) with saline-soaked dressings. Four trials compared the effectiveness of dextranomer beads or paste with other products (different comparator in each trial) to achieve complete debridement. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the unique comparisons within each trial. One trial reported that dextranomer achieved a clean wound bed significantly more quickly than Eusol, and one trial comparing enzymatic debridement with saline-soaked dressings reported that the enzyme-treated wounds were cleaned more quickly. However, methodological quality was poor in these two trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of large, high-quality published RCTs evaluating debridement per se, or comparing different methods of debridement for surgical wounds, to guide clinical decision-making.
Topics: Debridement; Dextrans; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptodornase and Streptokinase; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 21563150
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006214.pub3 -
The International Journal of Lower... Sep 2021Maggot therapy, also known as maggot debridement therapy, larval therapy, biodebridement, or biosurgery, is a type of biotherapy involving the intentional application of...
Maggot therapy, also known as maggot debridement therapy, larval therapy, biodebridement, or biosurgery, is a type of biotherapy involving the intentional application of live, disinfected fly larvae or maggots into the nonhealing wound of a human or animal to debride the necrotic wound, reduce bacterial contamination of the wound as well as enhance the formation of healthy granulation tissue and stimulate healing in nonhealing wounds. In addition, van der Plas et al reported that the use of the medicinal larvae as natural remover of necrotic and infected tissue had prevented amputation in 11 selected patients. In Malaysia, Aaron et al had demonstrated prevention of amputation in 25 patients.
Topics: Animals; Debridement; Dermatologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Larva; Malaysia; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32524879
DOI: 10.1177/1534734620932397