ArticleInternational wound journal2024
How effective is simple mechanical wound debridement in reducing bacterial colonisation? Results of a prospective clinical study.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- S1 Guideline on Infected Interdigital Intertrigo (also called Gram-Negative Toe Web Infection).Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Guideline
- Absence of Bacterial Fluorescence Is Associated With Early Response to Skin Substitutes in Diabetic and Venous Ulcers: A Single-Blinded Prospective Study.International wound journal · 2026Observational
- TLR2-PI3K/Akt mediated microbe-mimetic priming boosts the therapeutic paracrine function of GelMA-Encapsulated MSCs for diabetic wound regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review of Fluorescence Imaging: A Promising New Technology for Bacterial Detection in Burn Wounds.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Article
- Clinical and Economic Evidence Supporting the Value of Fluorescence Imaging of Bacteria in Wound Care.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Review
- Systematics, diagnosis and treatment of wound infections in chronic wounds: A position paper from WundDACH.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025Review
- Approach to the Atypical Wound.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2024Review
- Ceramic Dressings-A New Non-Pharmacological Therapeutic Option in the Management of Chronic Wounds?Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- How effective is simple mechanical wound debridement in reducing bacterial colonisation? Results of a prospective clinical study.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsBacteria in wounds can lead to stagnation of wound healing as well as to local or even systemic wound infections up to potentially lethal sepsis. Consequently, the bacterial load should be reduced as part of wound treatment. Therefore, the efficacy of simple mechanical wound debridement should be investigated in terms of reducing bacterial colonisation. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with acute or chronic wounds were assessed for bacterial colonisation with a fluorescence camera before and after mechanical wound debridement with sterile cotton pads. If bacterial colonisation persisted, a second, targeted wound debridement was performed.
resultsA total of 151 patients, 68 (45.0%) men and 83 (55.0%) women were included in this study. The male mean age was 71.0 years and the female 65.1 years. By establishing a new analysis method for the image files, we could document that the bacterial colonised areas were distributed 21.9% on the wound surfaces, 60.5% on the wound edges (up to 0.5 cm) and 17.6% on the wound surroundings (up to 1.5 cm). One mechanical debridement achieved a significant reduction of bacterial colonised areas by an average of 29.6% in the wounds, 18.9% in the wound edges and 11.8% in the wound surroundings and was increased by performing it a second time.
conclusionsIt has been shown that even a simple mechanical debridement with cotton pads can significantly reduce bacterial colonisation without relevant side effects. In particular, the wound edges were the areas that were often most contaminated with bacteria and should be included in the debridement with special attention. Since bacteria remain in wounds after mechanical debridement, it cannot replace antimicrobial therapy strategies, but offer a complementary strategy to improve wound care. Thus, it could be shown that simple mechanical debridement is effective in reducing bacterial load and should be integrated into a therapeutic approach to wounds whenever appropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.