Challenges in Biofilm Identification in Diabetic Foot Infections: Review of Literature.

Foot ulcerations are one of the most common complications of diabetes and one of the major initial causes of amputations. The formation of biofilms on wounds significantly contributes to infections and delayed healing. While existing methods for identifying these biofilms have limitations, there is a need for a convenient tool for its clinical application. This literature review aimed to address the problem with current clinical biofilm identification in wound care and a proposal for biofilm-detection-based wound care in diabetic foot ulcer patients. Identifying biofilms is particularly vital due to the absence of typical signs of infection in DFUs. However, current approaches, although effective, often prove invasive and technically intricate. The wound blotting technique, involving attaching a nitrocellulose membrane and subsequent staining, presents an alternative that is swift and non-invasive. Research highlights the applicability of wound blotting with alcian blue staining in clinical scenarios, consistently producing sensitive outcomes. By addressing the critical need for early biofilm detection, wound blotting holds promise for enhancing DFU management and contributing to strategies aimed at preventing amputations.

Advancements in Managing Wound Biofilm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Topical Modalities.

Despite numerous available agents claiming anti-biofilm properties on wounds, the substantiating evidence remains inconclusive. This study aimed to assess the immediate impact of topical wound treatments on wound biofilm and healing outcomes in acute and chronic ulcers. We comprehensively searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. In addition, eligible gray literature was incorporated. English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational, cohort, and case-control studies targeting biofilm prevention, inhibition, or elimination across diverse wound types were included. Primary outcomes included biofilm presence and elimination, supplemented by secondary outcomes encompassing reduced wound size, complete closure, and diminished infection indicators. Bacterial load reduction and biofilm presence were also assessed. Twenty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria. Various modalities were identified, including biofilm-visualization techniques, such as wound blotting and handheld autofluorescence imaging. Pooled analysis for the primary outcomes was infeasible due to limited eligible studies and data-reporting challenges. As for the secondary outcomes, the pooled analysis for complete surgical wound closure (2 RCTs, yielding n=284) and presence of surgical site infections/inflammation (2 RCTs, yielding n=284) showed no significant difference, with a log odds ratio (LOD) of 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -.33, 1.50) and LOD -0.95 (95% CI: -3.54, 1.64; τ2 = 2.32, Q = 2.71, P = .10), respectively. Our findings suggest insufficient evidence to support anti-biofilm claims of topical modalities. Clinicians' skill appears to play a pivotal role in biofilm elimination and wound healing enhancement, with potential optimization through visual-guided techniques, such as wound blotting and autofluorescence imaging. More rigorous clinical trials are warranted to ascertain the efficacy of these techniques.Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, 1A.