Objective: Debridement, the removal of nonviable tissue, forms the foundation of wound care practice. Clinicians have a variety of debridement methods at their disposal: sharp, biologic, enzymatic, autolytic and mechanical. The choice of debridement technique depends on the patient care setting, ulcer type and the clinician's experience, training, comfort level and licensure. This prospective study evaluated a novel debridement instrument, EZ-Debride (MDM Ventures, US). Cutting flutes on the head of the tool permit uniform removal of dead tissue while lessening the risk of deeper injury. It may also minimise pain during the debridement procedure. Method: Subjects with hard-to-heal wounds, drawn from a single wound care centre, participated in this institutional review board-approved prospective clinical study. Pain was measured before, during and after debridement using a numerical scale. Assessment of bacterial burden using fluorescence imaging (MolecuLight, Canada) was performed before and after debridement. Results: Enrolment of 10 male and 12 female subjects, with a total of 28 wounds, was carried out over a two-month period by two investigators at a single institution. The average age of subjects was 64 years (range: 22–95 years). The average wound duration was 29 weeks (range: 6–142 weeks). Wound types included diabetic foot, venous leg and pressure ulcers, post-surgical and traumatic wounds. The average pain score at the time of enrolment was 3.9. Subjects reported an average increase in pain with debridement of 0.6 points (range: 0–8). Fluorescence imaging demonstrated a reduction in bacterial load in 69% of cases, with complete resolution in 19% of wounds. Haemostasis was achieved with direct pressure in all cases and the only adverse event was a wound infection that occurred four days after debridement. Conclusion: The results suggest that this novel debridement tool can safely remove nonviable tissue with minimal discomfort and reduce bacterial burden similar to results achieved by sharp debridement.

Background: Each year, millions of Americans develop truncal pressure ulcers (PUs) which can persist for months, years, or until the end of life. Despite the negative impact on quality of life and escalating costs associated with PUs, there is sparse evidence supporting validated and efficacious treatment options. As a result, treatment is based on opinion and extrapolation from other wound etiologies. The ideal reconstructive plan maximizes the patient’s nutritional status, incorporates the basic tenets of wound bed preparation (debridement, offloading, proper moisture balance, reduction of bacterial burden), and employs diagnostics to guide therapeutic intervention. The use of combination therapies can potentially overcome several of the barriers to wound healing. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), a commonly used modality in the management of PUs, facilitates healing by stimulating the formation of granulation tissue and promoting wound contraction; however, NPWT alone is not always effective. Clinical studies examining microbial bioburden in PUs determined that most ulcers contain bacteria at levels that impede wound healing (>10⁴ CFU/g). Objective: Thus, we hypothesized that adding an anti-microbial agent to decrease both planktonic and biofilm bacteria in the wound would increase the efficacy of NPWT. Method: In this prospective study, twenty patients with recalcitrant PUs that previously failed NPWT were treated with a biofilm-disrupting agent (Blast-X, Next Science, Jacksonville, FL, USA) in combination with NPWT. Fluorescence imaging was used to follow bacterial burden and guide therapy. Results: In total, 45% of the PUs reduced in size over the course of the four-week study, with a resolution of bacterial fluorescence in the NPWT dressing and wound bed seen in an average of three weeks. Conclusion: The combination of an antibiofilm agent and NPWT reduced bacterial levels and improved wound healing in recalcitrant PUs.