[In vitro comparison of antibacterial efficacy of nonadherent antimicrobial dressings].

Q3 Medicine
Johana Kučerová, Vojtěch Mezera, Ivo Bureš
{"title":"[In vitro comparison of antibacterial efficacy of nonadherent antimicrobial dressings].","authors":"Johana Kučerová, Vojtěch Mezera, Ivo Bureš","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The use of nonadherent dressings is part of care for chronic wounds. In this paper, we present the results of in vitro activity of several such dressings on bacteria most commonly found in chronic wounds.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Selected bacterial strains were isolated from chronic wounds of patients in Pardubice Hospital in the period from February to May 2022. The following dressings were tested: Inadine and Aqvidine, both containing povidone iodine, Bactigras containing chlorhexidine acetate and Xeroform containing bismuth tribromophenate. The zone of inhibition size and the ability to inhibit growth after dressing removal were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inadine and Aqvidine had significantly larger zones of inhibition than Bactigras or Xeroform. We found no significant differences between Inadine and Aqvidine (except for Klebsiella pneumoniae) or between Bactigras and Xeroform (except for Streptococcus pyogenes). Inadine and Aqvidine were able to inhibit bacterial growth after dressing removal (except for Proteus mirabilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Bactigras and Xeroform did not exhibit this ability, which was only observed for Streptococcus pyogenes after removal of Bactigras.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The dressings Inadine and Aqvidine containing povidone iodine were more effective than Bactigras and Xeroform against all species tested and their antibacterial activity against most strains persisted even after removal. These differences in antibacterial -efficacy should be considered when selecting wound dressings.</p>","PeriodicalId":17909,"journal":{"name":"Klinicka mikrobiologie a infekcni lekarstvi","volume":"29 2","pages":"36-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Klinicka mikrobiologie a infekcni lekarstvi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The use of nonadherent dressings is part of care for chronic wounds. In this paper, we present the results of in vitro activity of several such dressings on bacteria most commonly found in chronic wounds.

Material and methods: Selected bacterial strains were isolated from chronic wounds of patients in Pardubice Hospital in the period from February to May 2022. The following dressings were tested: Inadine and Aqvidine, both containing povidone iodine, Bactigras containing chlorhexidine acetate and Xeroform containing bismuth tribromophenate. The zone of inhibition size and the ability to inhibit growth after dressing removal were evaluated.

Results: Inadine and Aqvidine had significantly larger zones of inhibition than Bactigras or Xeroform. We found no significant differences between Inadine and Aqvidine (except for Klebsiella pneumoniae) or between Bactigras and Xeroform (except for Streptococcus pyogenes). Inadine and Aqvidine were able to inhibit bacterial growth after dressing removal (except for Proteus mirabilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Bactigras and Xeroform did not exhibit this ability, which was only observed for Streptococcus pyogenes after removal of Bactigras.

Conclusions: The dressings Inadine and Aqvidine containing povidone iodine were more effective than Bactigras and Xeroform against all species tested and their antibacterial activity against most strains persisted even after removal. These differences in antibacterial -efficacy should be considered when selecting wound dressings.

非黏附抗菌敷料的体外抗菌效果比较。
目的:使用非粘附敷料是慢性伤口护理的一部分。在本文中,我们提出了几种这种敷料对慢性伤口中最常见的细菌的体外活性的结果。材料与方法:选取2022年2 - 5月帕尔杜比采医院慢性伤口患者中分离的细菌菌株。测试了以下敷料:含有聚维酮碘的Inadine和aquvidine,含有醋酸氯己定的Bactigras和含有三溴苯酸铋的Xeroform。对去除敷料后的抑制区大小和抑制生长的能力进行了评价。结果:吲哚丁和阿维丁的抑制区明显大于巴氏菌素和赛罗酮。我们发现Inadine和Aqvidine(肺炎克雷伯菌除外)或Bactigras和Xeroform(化脓性链球菌除外)之间没有显著差异。除变形杆菌和铜绿假单胞菌外,Inadine和aquvidine均能抑制敷料去除后的细菌生长。Bactigras和Xeroform没有表现出这种能力,这只在去除Bactigras后的化脓性链球菌中观察到。结论:含聚维酮碘的Inadine和Aqvidine敷料对所有菌种的抑菌效果均优于Bactigras和Xeroform,且去除后对大部分菌种的抑菌活性仍保持不变。在选择伤口敷料时应考虑这些抗菌效果的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Klinicka mikrobiologie a infekcni lekarstvi
Klinicka mikrobiologie a infekcni lekarstvi Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信