The effectiveness of four mechanical debridement devices for removing ex vivo porcine wound biofilms was assessed. Devices comprised a one-sided straight monofilament fibre pad, a one-sided looped monofilament fibre pad, a two-sided foam pad with distinct loosening and absorptive surfaces (TSFP), and traditional cotton gauze. Dual-species Staphylococcus aureus / Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms were cultivated in an ex vivo porcine wound model. Debridement was standardised using a mechanical simulator and performed at a single time point (24 h, 72 h, or 7 d post-inoculation) to represent differing biofilm maturities, or repeatedly over seven days (once, twice, or three times) to simulate outpatient dressing-change schedules. Biofilm removal was quantified using colony counting and viability mapping. In the model-derived percentage-removal analysis following single debridements, OSLMP and TSFP demonstrated significantly greater removal than gauze at 24 h. TSFP consistently achieved > 90% model-derived reduction in viable CFU/wound across all single-debridement time points and demonstrated significantly greater removal than gauze at 24, 72 and 168 h. PrestoBlue staining revealed corresponding reductions in PrestoBlue-positive wound-surface coverage. Following repeated debridements, TSFP maintained > 90% model-derived reduction in viable CFU/wound and demonstrated significantly greater removal than gauze following each debridement schedule. Hedges’ g effect sizes frequently exceeded 2.0 for TSFP relative to gauze and the single-sided devices, indicating pronounced effects under the predefined interpretation thresholds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Doherty et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: