A real-world study of a calcium alginate dressing for various wound etiologies on clinical performance, usability, and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Complex wounds require a moist wound healing environment and exudate control. Alginate dressings are highly absorbable and available as sheets for superficial wounds and ropes for deeper wounds. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the real-world performance of a conformable CAD containing mannuronic acid for various wound types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The usability and safety of the tested CAD were evaluated in adult patients with various wound types. Further endpoints were clinician satisfaction with dressing application and suitability for wound type and their opinion of the tested CAD compared with other dressings of this type. RESULTS: The study included 83 patients with exuding wounds (42 male [51%]; 41 female [49%]) and a mean age of 74.54 years (SD ± 15.54 years). Thirteen clinicians (76%) (x = 1.24) rated the first CAD application as very easy, 4 (24%) as easy, and 1 (6%) as not easy. The time for dressing application was ranked as very good (x = 1.65) by 8 clinicians (47%), while 7 (41%) rated the time for application as good, and 2 (12%) gave a satisfactory rating. CONCLUSION: The CAD sheet and rope were safe to use and fit for purpose in wounds of various etiologies. In addition, the dressing was easy to handle and remove, formed a gel faster than other alginates, and outperformed other previous products.

Clinical Experience Using a Monofilament Fiber Cleansing and Debriding Technology for Various Skin Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Gentle skin cleansing and exfoliation and the use of moisturizers as an adjunct to medical treatment should be part of the prevention, treatment, and maintenance of cutaneous conditions such as acne vulgaris (acne) psoriasis, and xerosis. A monofilament fiber debriding technology (MFDT) is used for effective, safe, and rapid skin cleansing and exfoliation and debris, slough, and biofilm removal. The current review addresses the clinical experience using MFDT for various cutaneous conditions that require cleansing or exfoliation or both and how to combine it with medical treatment. METHODS: A literature review explored clinical insights into the role of skin cleansing and exfoliation for patients with various dermatological conditions. The searches yielded 29 publications, 7 guidelines/algorithms, 13 reviews, 8 clinical studies, and one in vitro study. RESULTS: Mechanical cleansing using a device can be helpful; however, avoid injury of the skin as it may result in thickening of the epidermis leading to hyperkeratosis and disruption of the skin barrier. Clinical experience with MFDT for acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and xerosis is discussed. Additionally, MFDT was used to exfoliate hyperkeratosis, actinic keratosis, and traumatic skin tattoos. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical cleansing using MFDT was shown to be safe and beneficial for skin cleansing and exfoliation of various cutaneous conditions; however, only anecdotal evidence or small studies are available to support its use for these conditions. J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(11):1173-1180. doi:10.36849/JDD.6261.

Use of a monofilament debridement pad in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

OBJECTIVE: Acne vulgaris (acne) presents with increased oil-sebum secretion and subsequent formation of comedones, papules, pustules and nodules. Skin cleansing is part of the daily routine to improve skin condition. A monofilament debridement pad has shown to be effective when used for wound debridement and skin cleansing in dermatological conditions. The pad may offer benefits when used for acne affected skin. METHODS: The in vitro cleansing capacity of the monofilament fibre pad was analysed and compared with commercially available cosmetic pads. For this purpose, a sebum model consisting of glass plates coated with an oil-red-stained layer of artificial sebum was used. To gain clinical experience a case series evaluated cleansing efficacy of the monofilament debridement pad in combination with polyhexanide and sodium-hypochlorite based solutions. Over a period of four months, seven individuals suffering from retentive moderate facial acne who visited the dermatology clinic for their acne used the pad as necessary, ranging from twice weekly to daily, dependent on the sensitivity of the patient's skin condition. RESULTS: The in vitro study exhibited a significantly better cleansing efficacy of the monofilament debridement pad compared with the cosmetic pads. After single use of the pad subject scores on sebum reduction revealed excellent/very good in 42.9% and acceptable in 57.1% of cases. After repeated use of the monofilament pads scores on sebum reduction of excellent/very good were given in 85.7% and acceptable in 14.3% of cases. Subject scored handling of the pad and comfort during use also received favourable ratings. CONCLUSION: These initial results show the potential of the monofilament debridement pad for cleansing of acne-prone and acne affected skin. More robust studies are needed to confirm these results.

Biofilm management using monofilament fibre debridement technology: outcomes and clinician and patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: Best practice in wound bed preparation and biofilm-based wound management includes debridement to create a clean wound bed and to assist in minimising the redevelopment of biofilm. Biofilm that is not removed inhibits healing and redevelops if not prevented from doing so with topical antimicrobial agents. Monofilament fibre debriding technology (MFDT) is used for effective and rapid mechanical debridement of loose material, slough and biofilm. The objective of this evaluation was to determine the clinical effect and consequential levels of health professional and patient satisfaction with the results of a biofilm pathway that included MFDT to achieve debridement. METHODS: This non-comparative, open label evaluation was conducted in static and non-static wounds that required debridement. MFDT was used to debride in a two-week evaluation of a biofilm pathway. Wounds were debrided three times in week one and twice in week two. Each debridement was followed by treatment with an antimicrobial dressing. Other care included secondary dressings and compression delivered according to local practice, guidelines and formularies. After the clinical evaluation, health professionals were invited to complete an online survey of the clinical outcomes and their satisfaction with the biofilm pathway. RESULTS: There were 706 health professionals who provided answers to the survey questions. Wound types evaluated were leg ulcers (67.4%), pressure ulcers (10%), dehisced surgical wounds (1.7%), diabetic foot ulcers (7.4%) and other wounds (13.4%). Of the wounds, 9% were reported as non-static despite the eligibility criteria. Not all wounds followed the pathway. The most frequently-used antimicrobial was silver. Non-antimicrobial products used included all-in-one dressings, other secondary dressings and compression. There was a change in 77% of wounds overall after two weeks. Change was reported almost equally for both static and non-static wounds. Health professionals who did or did not follow the pathway were 'completely satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the overall clinical outcome 96% and 95%, respectively. Of the patients, 77% were 'completely satisfied' or 'satisfied' with healing after following the pathway, as reported by the treating health professional. CONCLUSION: The biofilm pathway that includes MFDT appears effective. Wounds managed on the pathway were debrided effectively and healing progressed to the satisfaction of both health professionals and patients.

Rapid debridement with monofilament fibre debridement technology: clinical outcomes and practitioner satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effect and consequential levels of health professionals and patient satisfaction with the results of debridement episodes of wounds with visible slough and/or scaly skin using monofilament fibre debridement technology. METHODS: This was a non-comparative, open label evaluation conducted in static/non-healing acute and chronic wounds with visible slough and/or scaly skin that required debridement. Monofilament fibre debridement technology was applied in 1-2 sequential treatment episodes during normal clinical practice which followed local practice, guidelines or formularies. Following the clinical phase of the evaluation, health professionals were invited to complete an online survey of the clinical outcomes and their satisfaction with them. RESULTS: Survey questions were answered by 1129 health professionals. Wounds managed using the monofilament fibre debridement technology during this evaluation included leg ulcers (63%), pressure ulcers (10%), dehisced surgical wounds (3%), diabetic foot ulcers (8%) and other wounds (13%). 'Other' wound types included acute dirty wounds, burns, cellulitis, psoriasis, diabetic amputation wounds, dry flaky skin, moisture wounds, trauma, varicose eczema. Of the wounds, 12% were reported as non-static. There was visible change in the wound and/or skin after first use of the monofilament fibre debridement technology in a high proportion of all wound types, and a further increase in the proportion of wounds with visible change after the second use. The visible difference was significant for both static and non-static wounds. User and patient satisfaction with all clinical outcomes were high, whether or not the user and patient had previous experience of monofilament fibre debridement technology. CONCLUSION: Monofilament fibre debridement technology provides rapid, visible and effective debridement of slough and scaly skin after one application and further visible improvement after two applications in static and non-static wounds. Health professionals and patients report high levels of satisfaction with outcomes following application of the monofilament fibre debridement technology.

A purpose-designed monofilament-fibre pad for debridement of hard-to-reach wounds: experience in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Effective and comfortable debridement is an important part of managing complex wounds. This user test evaluated a monofilament-fibre pad (with handle) (Debrisoft Lolly, Lohmann & Rauscher GmbH & Co. KG) in the debridement of various hard-to-reach wounds. METHOD: The multicentre, international user test was performed by experienced physicians and nurses in Germany and the UK, who used the monofilament-fibre pad in their clinical practice. After debridement, using the monofilament-fibre pad, the clinicians completed an evaluation questionnaire. The assessment comprised of performance, usability, tolerability, safety and suitability of the device for debridement, comparing it with standard methods used in the clinicians' centres. RESULTS: A total of 23 clinicians in 20 centres each treated between six and 10 patients with the monofilament-fibre pad (a total of 155 wounds of different aetiologies). Most participating patients had deep wounds (n=63 (41%)) or cavity (n=31 (20%)) wounds. When compared with the standard debridement method used at the centres, the tested device was scored as 'easier' or 'equally easy' to use in all cases. When comparing the standard debridement procedure with the monofilament-fibre pad, debridement duration was reported as equal to or shorter than the standard method in 90% of cases when using the monofilament-fibre pad. Debridement efficacy was scored by the clinician as 'better' or 'equal' for the monofilament-fibre pad in 67% of cases. Overall, patients reported that the study device was comfortable. CONCLUSION: The monofilament-fibre pad effectively, easily and safely removed slough and debris from wounds of various aetiologies and was effective in wounds of different shapes, such as in cavity wounds and those in hard-to-reach locations.