An international assessment of surgeon practices in abdominal wound closure and surgical site infection prevention by the European Society for Coloproctology.

AIM: The burden of abdominal wound failure can be profound. Recent clinical guidelines have highlighted the heterogeneity of laparotomy closure techniques. The aim of this study was to investigate current midline closure techniques and practices for prevention of surgical site infection (SSI). METHOD: An online survey was distributed in 2021 among the membership of the European Society of Coloproctology and its partner societies. Surgeons were asked to provide information on how they would close the abdominal wall in three specific clinical scenarios and on SSI prevention practices. RESULTS: A total of 561 consultants and trainee surgeons participated in the survey, mainly from Europe (n = 375, 66.8%). Of these, 60.6% identified themselves as colorectal surgeons and 39.4% as general surgeons. The majority used polydioxanone for fascial closure, with small bite techniques predominating in clean-contaminated cases (74.5%, n = 418). No significant differences were found between consultants and trainee surgeons. For SSI prevention, more surgeons preferred the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone over MBP and oral antibiotics combined. Most surgeons preferred 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine (68.4%) or aqueous povidone-iodine (61.1%) for skin preparation. The majority did not use triclosan-coated sutures (73.3%) or preoperative warming of the wound site (78.5%), irrespective of level of training or European/non-European practice. CONCLUSION: Abdominal wound closure technique and SSI prevention strategies vary widely between surgeons. There is little evidence of a risk-stratified approach to wound closure materials or techniques, with most surgeons using the same strategy for all patient scenarios. Harmonization of practice and the limitation of outlying techniques might result in better outcomes for patients and provide a stable platform for the introduction and evaluation of further potential improvements.

Expert guidance on prophylaxis and treatment of dermatologic adverse events with Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy in the thoracic region.

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields, delivered via wearable arrays placed on or near the tumor site, that exert physical forces to disrupt cellular processes critical for cancer cell viability and tumor progression. As a first-in-class treatment, TTFields therapy is approved for use in newly diagnosed glioblastoma, recurrent glioblastoma, and pleural mesothelioma. Additionally, TTFields therapy is being investigated in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), brain metastases from NSCLC, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma. Because TTFields therapy is well tolerated and delivery is locoregional, there is low risk of additive systemic adverse events (AEs) when used with other cancer treatment modalities. The most common AE associated with TTFields therapy is mild-to-moderate skin events, which can be treated with topical agents and may be managed without significant treatment interruptions. Currently, there are no guidelines for oncologists regarding the management of TTFields therapy-related skin AEs in the thoracic region, applicable for patients with pleural mesothelioma or NSCLC. This publication aims to provide guidance on preventing, minimizing, and managing dermatologic AEs in the thoracic region to help improve patient quality of life and reduce treatment interruptions that may impact outcomes with TTFields therapy.

Increased Clinical and Economic Burden Associated With Peripheral Intravenous Catheter-Related Complications: Analysis of a US Hospital Discharge Database.

The burden of complications associated with peripheral intravenous use is underevaluated, in part, due to the broad use, inconsistent coding, and lack of mandatory reporting of these devices. This study aimed to analyze the clinical and economic impact of peripheral intravenous-related complications on hospitalized patients. This analysis of Premier Perspective® Database US hospital discharge records included admissions occurring between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2015 for pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, diabetes with complications, and major trauma (hip, spinal, cranial fractures). Admissions were assumed to include a peripheral intravenous. Admissions involving surgery, dialysis, or central venous lines were excluded. Multivariable analyses compared inpatient length of stay, cost, admission to intensive care unit, and discharge status of patients with versus without peripheral intravenous-related complications (bloodstream infection, cellulitis, thrombophlebitis, other infection, or extravasation). Models were conducted separately for congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes with complications, and overall (all 7 diagnoses) and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. We identified 588 375 qualifying admissions: mean (SD), age 66.1 (20.6) years; 52.4% female; and 95.2% urgent/emergent admissions. Overall, 1.76% of patients (n = 10 354) had peripheral intravenous-related complications. In adjusted analyses between patients with versus without peripheral intravenous complications, the mean (95% confidence interval) inpatient length of stay was 5.9 (5.8-6.0) days versus 3.9 (3.9-3.9) days; mean hospitalization cost was $10 895 ($10 738-$11 052) versus $7009 ($6988-$7031). Patients with complications were less likely to be discharged home versus those without (62.4% [58.6%-66.1%] vs 77.6% [74.6%-80.5%]) and were more likely to have died (3.6% [2.9%-4.2%] vs 0.7% [0.6%-0.9%]). Models restricted to single admitting diagnosis were consistent with overall results. Patients with peripheral intravenous-related complications have longer length of stay, higher costs, and greater risk of death than patients without such complications; this is true across diagnosis groups of interest. Future research should focus on reducing these complications to improve clinical and economic outcomes.

Hemostasis during urologic surgery: fibrin sealant compared with absorbable hemostat.

In the United States, fibrin sealants have been used to achieve hemostasis for nearly two decades. Although their clinical utility was first demonstrated in cardiac surgery, their effectiveness and safety have since been demonstrated to extend to a wide array of procedures. Fibrin sealants typically contain two components-fibrinogen and thrombin-that are combined and delivered simultaneously to a target bleeding site in order to achieve hemostasis. However, many commercial formulations contain other additional components, such as antifibrinolytic agents, that have been associated with adverse outcomes. This subanalysis compares the safety and effectiveness of a fibrin sealant versus an absorbable hemostat for achieving hemostasis during urologic procedures with mild to moderate bleeding.

Wound bed preparation 2014 update: management of critical colonization with a gentian violet and methylene blue absorbent antibacterial dressing and elevated levels of matrix metalloproteases with an ovine collagen extracellular matrix dressing.

Wound bed preparation (WBP) is a paradigm for holistic patient care that includes treatment of the cause along with patient-centered concerns before optimizing the components of local wound care (debridement, infection/inflammation, moisture balance, and, when required, the edge effect). This review incorporates a methylene blue and gentian violet bound foam dressing for critical colonization and an ovine collagen extracellular matrix dressing for reduction of elevated levels of matrix metalloproteases into the WBP paradigm.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antiseptics Cadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers; review authors also examined the effects of these interventions on clinical infection, bacterial flora, bacterial resistance, ulcer recurrence, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life and costs. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antisepticsCadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.

Economic impact of use of chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressing for prevention of central line-associated infections in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The economic impact of adding chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated sponge dressing to standard care (ie, chg-impregnated sponge dressing + skin preparation and transparent film dressing vs skin preparation and transparent film dressing) for the prevention of central-line infections was evaluated. METHODS: Clinical and economic data were obtained from peer-reviewed published studies to populate the decision model. The efficacy of reducing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI) incidence with CHG-impregnated sponge dressing came from 2 recent randomized controlled trials. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed on key clinical and economic parameters. RESULTS: Based on model calculations, a hypothetical 400-bed hospital inserting 3,078 central venous catheters (CVCs) per year is expected to avoid an average of 35 CR-BSIs, 145 local infections, and 281 intensive care unit days annually with the systematic use of CHG-impregnated sponge dressing. Potential hospital net cost savings (mainly because of reduced CR-BSIs with use of the dressing) would be $895,000 annually. Results were robust across a range of values in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: CHG-impregnated sponge dressing is a cost-effective CR-BSI prevention treatment option for patients requiring CVCs. The importance of these results should be considered in the context of federal government and insurance company policies that no longer permit enhanced reimbursement for CR-BSI.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. There are two main strategies used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the review is to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics, topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24/09/09); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library 2009 Issue 3; Ovid MEDLINE - 1950 to September Week 3 2009; Ovid EMBASE - 1980 to 2009 Week 38; and EBSCO CINAHL - 1982 to September Week 3 2009. No language or publication date restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials recruiting people with venous leg ulceration and evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two authors working independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes were recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one author and checked by a second. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty five trials reporting 32 comparisons were identified. Five trials evaluated systemic antibiotics; the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (10 trials); povidone iodine (5 trials); peroxide-based preparations (3 trials); ethacridine lactate (1 trial); mupirocin (1 trial); and chlorhexidine (1 trial). For the systemic antibiotics, the only comparison where a statistically significant between-group difference was detected was that in favour of the antihelminthic levamisole when compared with placebo. This trial, in common with the other evaluations of systemic antibiotics, was small and so the observed effect could have occurred by chance or been due to baseline imbalances in prognostic factors. For topical preparations, there is some evidence to suggest that cadexomer iodine generates higher healing rates than standard care. One study showed a statistically significant result in favour of cadexomer iodine when compared with standard care (not involving compression) in the frequency of complete healing at six weeks (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.74). The intervention regimen used was intensive, involving daily dressing changes, and so these findings may not be generalisable to most everyday clinical settings. When cadexomer iodine was compared with standard care with all patients receiving compression, the pooled estimate from two trials for frequency of complete healing at 4 to 6 weeks indicated significantly higher healing rates for cadexomer iodine (RR 6.72, 95% CI 1.56 to 28.95). Surrogate healing outcomes such as change in ulcer surface area and daily or weekly healing rate showed favourable results for cadexomer iodine, peroxide-based preparations and ethacridine lactate in some studies. These surrogate outcomes may not be valid proxies for complete healing of the wound. Most of the trials were small and many had methodological problems such as poor baseline comparability between groups, failure to use (or report) true randomisation, adequate allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessment and analysis by intention-to-treat. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no evidence to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics to promote healing in venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, there is some evidence to support the use of cadexomer iodine. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics and topical preparations such as povidone iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, mupirocin and chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should only be used in cases of clinical infection and not for bacterial colonisation.

Advances in wound dressings.

Wound dressings have undergone an evolutionary process from natural materials that simply covered and concealed the wound, to materials that focused on moisture management, and more recently, to materials that either deliver active ingredients or interact directly with cells or specific chemicals in the local wound environment. Advances in dressings technology have led to a new proliferation of topical products that do more than just cover and conceal, but that also can facilitate the healing process as well as address specific issues in nonhealing wounds. Dressings may play an important adjunctive role in concert with overall efforts to manage the underlying causes of chronic nonhealing wounds.

The truth about silver.

Interest in silver as a topical agent in wound healing is undergoing a renaissance. Having basic information regarding silver's chemical properties and potential actions in the wound bed is important to its appropriate clinical use. Such information is also relevant to the interpretation of silver's in vitro antimicrobial (antiseptic) effects, which in turn relate to issues involved in the evaluation of the clinical effects of silver in vivo. Gaining an understanding of the basic science of silver products and the different challenges inherent to in vitro versus in vivo antimicrobial evaluations will allow clinicians to address several key questions inherent when considering the use of silver as a topical antimicrobial: 1) Are there different forms of silver? 2) How does the amount of silver released into the wound environment correlate with clinical benefit? 3) How does the rate of silver release correlate with clinical benefit?

Bacterial toxins and wound healing.

Infection--a factor commonly related to delayed closure for many chronic and acute wounds--is associated with relatively high levels of bacteria in viable tissues. But bacteria also can delay wound healing at lower levels before tissue invasion via toxin secretion either directly from viable cells (exotoxins) or as a result of cell lysis (endotoxins). These toxins tend to cause local necrosis and disrupt the delicate balance of critical mediators such as cytokines and proteases necessary for healing progression. Therefore, toxin control or absorption is a potentially valuable adjunct to any infection control modality. A long-standing method of controlling toxins of many types is the use of high surface area adsorbents, such as activated charcoal. Recent data suggest that activated charcoal may offer specific advantages in topical wound management through its effects on bacterial toxins.

The evolution of wound management: ancient origins and advances of the past 20 years.

Harkening back to the beginning of wound management, this article presents a fascinating look into how wounds have been viewed and cared for over the last 2,000 years. To celebrate 's 20th anniversary, changes in wound management over the past 2 decades are also described.

Overview of matrix metalloprotease modulation and growth factor protection in wound healing. Part 1.

Increasingly, basic research is revealing that the biochemical environment of the non-healing wound is different from that of the healing wound in ways that negatively affect multiple aspects of the healing process. These areas of biochemical difference may provide avenues of research for new therapeutic interventions. A particular biochemical finding in nonhealing wounds of diverse etiologies is the persistent elevated levels of a specific class of proteolytic enzymes known as the matrix metalloproteases or MMPs. The effects of these high levels of MMPs in the wound environment are thought to include local destruction of growth factors and their receptors as well as degradation of granulation tissue components. MMPs are fast gaining attention as potential causative factors in impaired healing, and recently, strategies have been focused on preventing or reducing their levels, once elevated, in the wound environment. A proprietary combination of bovine collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose has demonstrated an ability to not only reduce elevated wound proteases but also sequester and protect wound growth factors and promote cellular chemotaxis and proliferation.

Dealing with drainage: the what, why, and how of wound exudate.

Managing exudate is a critical factor in reaching successful outcomes. Accurately assessing the quantity and quality of exudate is essential to a comprehensive assessment and the development of an initial plan of care. Likewise, skilled care is required to accurately determine healing progression and modifications to the care plan. This article provides the scientific rationale and tips for practice to update clinicians on this important competency.