Coblation Versus Surgical Debridement Against MRSA Infection in Wounds With Shrapnel: A Preliminary Study.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Military Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1093/milmed/usae302
Joel Gil, Michael Solis, Ryan Strong, Stephen C Davis
{"title":"Coblation Versus Surgical Debridement Against MRSA Infection in Wounds With Shrapnel: A Preliminary Study.","authors":"Joel Gil, Michael Solis, Ryan Strong, Stephen C Davis","doi":"10.1093/milmed/usae302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Debridement plays a critical role in wound management. In addition to removing necrotic tissue, debridement can eliminate bacteria frequently harbored within the tissue. This study evaluated a novel debridement method that uses plasma-based radiofrequency technology to remove tissue and bacteria. Coblation is a technology that uses radiofrequency energy to excite the electrolytes in a conductive medium, such as saline, to create a precisely focused plasma. This plasma field contains highly energized particles that possess sufficient energy to break tissue molecular bonds, causing the tissue to dissolve at relatively low temperatures (typically 40 °C to 70 °C).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Eighteen deep dermal wounds measuring 22 mm × 22 mm × 3 mm deep were created on pigs. Wounds were inoculated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 (MRSA USA300) in combination with shrapnel and then covered with a polyurethane dressing for 24 hours. Wounds were then randomly assigned to one of the 3 treatment groups: (1) Coblation, (2) surgical debridement, and (3) no debridement. Wounds were biopsied on days 0, 5, 9, and 12, and specimens were processed for MRSA counts using selective media. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistics 27 using one-way ANOVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparison between coblation and surgical debridement showed a decrease in bacterial count in all assessment times. The lowest bacterial count in all assessment times was observed in wounds debrided with coblation showing a statistically significant (P ≤ .05) decrease in more than 2 Log CFU/g on days 0, 5, and 9 compared to no debridement. On day 12, coblation-debrided wounds exhibited 6.10 ± 0.22 Log CFU/g, and this value represents 99.99% of reduction compared with non-debrided wounds (P ≤ .05). More than 96% of reduction (P ≤ .05) resulted in wounds treated with coblation compared with surgically debrided.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reducing MRSA bacterial infection counts, especially of biofilm-associated organisms, in combination with shrapnel may have important clinical implications, especially for the military personnel. Further research into the use of this technology in wound management is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":18638,"journal":{"name":"Military Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"2482-2487"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usae302","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Debridement plays a critical role in wound management. In addition to removing necrotic tissue, debridement can eliminate bacteria frequently harbored within the tissue. This study evaluated a novel debridement method that uses plasma-based radiofrequency technology to remove tissue and bacteria. Coblation is a technology that uses radiofrequency energy to excite the electrolytes in a conductive medium, such as saline, to create a precisely focused plasma. This plasma field contains highly energized particles that possess sufficient energy to break tissue molecular bonds, causing the tissue to dissolve at relatively low temperatures (typically 40 °C to 70 °C).

Materials and methods: Eighteen deep dermal wounds measuring 22 mm × 22 mm × 3 mm deep were created on pigs. Wounds were inoculated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 (MRSA USA300) in combination with shrapnel and then covered with a polyurethane dressing for 24 hours. Wounds were then randomly assigned to one of the 3 treatment groups: (1) Coblation, (2) surgical debridement, and (3) no debridement. Wounds were biopsied on days 0, 5, 9, and 12, and specimens were processed for MRSA counts using selective media. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistics 27 using one-way ANOVA.

Results: Comparison between coblation and surgical debridement showed a decrease in bacterial count in all assessment times. The lowest bacterial count in all assessment times was observed in wounds debrided with coblation showing a statistically significant (P ≤ .05) decrease in more than 2 Log CFU/g on days 0, 5, and 9 compared to no debridement. On day 12, coblation-debrided wounds exhibited 6.10 ± 0.22 Log CFU/g, and this value represents 99.99% of reduction compared with non-debrided wounds (P ≤ .05). More than 96% of reduction (P ≤ .05) resulted in wounds treated with coblation compared with surgically debrided.

Conclusions: Reducing MRSA bacterial infection counts, especially of biofilm-associated organisms, in combination with shrapnel may have important clinical implications, especially for the military personnel. Further research into the use of this technology in wound management is warranted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
钴化法与手术清创法对抗弹片伤口 MRSA 感染的初步研究:初步研究。
介绍:清创在伤口管理中起着至关重要的作用。除了清除坏死组织外,清创还能消除组织内经常藏匿的细菌。本研究评估了一种新型清创方法,该方法使用等离子射频技术清除组织和细菌。钴化技术是一种利用射频能量激发导电介质(如生理盐水)中的电解质,从而产生精确聚焦等离子体的技术。这种等离子体场含有高能粒子,具有足够的能量来破坏组织分子键,使组织在相对较低的温度下(通常为 40 °C 至 70 °C)溶解:在猪身上制造了 18 个真皮深伤口,伤口大小为 22 毫米 × 22 毫米 × 3 毫米深。伤口接种耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌 USA300(MRSA USA300)和弹片,然后用聚氨酯敷料覆盖 24 小时。然后将伤口随机分配到 3 个治疗组中的一个:(1) Coblation,(2) 外科清创,(3) 不清创。在第 0、5、9 和 12 天对伤口进行活检,并使用选择性培养基对标本进行 MRSA 计数。使用 IBM SPSS 统计 27 进行统计分析,采用单因素方差分析:结果:钴溶法和手术清创法的比较显示,在所有评估时间内细菌数量都有所减少。与未清创相比,在第 0、5 和 9 天,用胶囊清创的伤口在所有评估时间内的细菌数最低,细菌数减少超过 2 Log CFU/g,差异有统计学意义(P ≤ .05)。第 12 天,共振清创后的伤口显示出 6.10 ± 0.22 Log CFU/g,与未清创的伤口相比,该值减少了 99.99%(P ≤ .05)。与手术清创的伤口相比,采用钴化处理的伤口减少了 96% 以上(P ≤ .05):结论:结合弹片减少 MRSA 细菌感染数量,尤其是与生物膜相关的细菌感染数量,可能具有重要的临床意义,尤其是对军人而言。有必要进一步研究该技术在伤口管理中的应用。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Military Medicine
Military Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
393
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Military Medicine is the official international journal of AMSUS. Articles published in the journal are peer-reviewed scientific papers, case reports, and editorials. The journal also publishes letters to the editor. The objective of the journal is to promote awareness of federal medicine by providing a forum for responsible discussion of common ideas and problems relevant to federal healthcare. Its mission is: To increase healthcare education by providing scientific and other information to its readers; to facilitate communication; and to offer a prestige publication for members’ writings.
期刊最新文献
Dosimetry as a Lagging Indicator of Occupational Exposure to Nitrous Oxide in Pediatric Sedation: A Collaborative Process Improvement Project With Industrial Hygiene. Navigating the Leadership Tightrope: A Case Study in the Art of Following and Supporting. Utilization of Prognosis Assignment: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Military Periodontists. High-Grade B-Cell Lymphoma: An Atypical Mass in the Colon. Burden of Musculoskeletal Injuries in U.S. Active Duty Service Members: A 12-Year Study Spanning Fiscal Years 2010-2021.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1