Francisco J Álvaro-Afonso, Sebastián Flores-Escobar, David Sevillano-Fernández, Yolanda García-Álvarez, Marta García-Madrid, José L Lázaro-Martínez
{"title":"低频接触超声清创在糖尿病足溃疡患者临床治疗中的应用。","authors":"Francisco J Álvaro-Afonso, Sebastián Flores-Escobar, David Sevillano-Fernández, Yolanda García-Álvarez, Marta García-Madrid, José L Lázaro-Martínez","doi":"10.1111/wrr.13124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current study aimed to evaluate the dispersal of solution and microbes (aerosol) in the clinical environment during treatment with Low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement (LFCUD) with or without suction attachment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We performed 20 treatments in 10 patients divided into two groups to receive the proposed LFCUD modalities. We measured the microbial load of the environment pre-treatment (sample M1), during treatment with each LFCUD modality (sample M2) and post-treatment (sample M3). The use of LFCUD debridement without a suction attachment results in significantly higher immediate contamination of the clinic environment than the suction attachment, particularly during the procedure (1.70 ± 0.98 log 10 CFU/mL versus 0.77 ± 0.85 log 10 CFU/mL, p = 0.035). When suction is not applied, there are statistically significant differences depending on whether the DFUs are neuropathic or neuroischemic, finding a greater number of microorganisms with high loads in neuropathic DFUs. We found a statistically significant positive correlation between wound area (r = 0.450, p = 0.047) and TBI (r = 0.651, p = 0.006) with the bacterial load during the LFCUD. Based on our results, we recommend using the personal protective equipment required to protect staff members and patients during treatment with LFCUD and using a suction attachment where clinically possible to reduce clinic environmental pollution, especially in neuropathic DFUs and those with larger areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":23864,"journal":{"name":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A deeper look at low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement in the clinical management of patients with diabetic foot ulcers.\",\"authors\":\"Francisco J Álvaro-Afonso, Sebastián Flores-Escobar, David Sevillano-Fernández, Yolanda García-Álvarez, Marta García-Madrid, José L Lázaro-Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/wrr.13124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The current study aimed to evaluate the dispersal of solution and microbes (aerosol) in the clinical environment during treatment with Low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement (LFCUD) with or without suction attachment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We performed 20 treatments in 10 patients divided into two groups to receive the proposed LFCUD modalities. We measured the microbial load of the environment pre-treatment (sample M1), during treatment with each LFCUD modality (sample M2) and post-treatment (sample M3). The use of LFCUD debridement without a suction attachment results in significantly higher immediate contamination of the clinic environment than the suction attachment, particularly during the procedure (1.70 ± 0.98 log 10 CFU/mL versus 0.77 ± 0.85 log 10 CFU/mL, p = 0.035). When suction is not applied, there are statistically significant differences depending on whether the DFUs are neuropathic or neuroischemic, finding a greater number of microorganisms with high loads in neuropathic DFUs. We found a statistically significant positive correlation between wound area (r = 0.450, p = 0.047) and TBI (r = 0.651, p = 0.006) with the bacterial load during the LFCUD. Based on our results, we recommend using the personal protective equipment required to protect staff members and patients during treatment with LFCUD and using a suction attachment where clinically possible to reduce clinic environmental pollution, especially in neuropathic DFUs and those with larger areas.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wound Repair and Regeneration\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wound Repair and Regeneration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13124\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13124","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究旨在评估低频接触超声清创(LFCUD)治疗糖尿病足溃疡(DFUs)时溶液和微生物(气溶胶)在临床环境中的扩散情况。我们对10名患者进行了20次治疗,将其分为两组接受拟议的LFCUD模式。我们测量了处理前(样品M1)、处理期间(样品M2)和处理后(样品M3)的环境微生物负荷。使用不带吸引装置的LFCUD清创对临床环境的直接污染明显高于使用吸引装置,特别是在手术过程中(1.70±0.98 log 10 CFU/mL vs 0.77±0.85 log 10 CFU/mL, p = 0.035)。不抽吸时,根据DFUs是神经性还是神经缺血性,差异有统计学意义,在神经性DFUs中发现了更多的高负荷微生物。我们发现伤口面积(r = 0.450, p = 0.047)和TBI (r = 0.651, p = 0.006)与LFCUD期间细菌负荷呈正相关,具有统计学意义。根据我们的研究结果,我们建议在LFCUD治疗期间使用所需的个人防护设备来保护工作人员和患者,并在临床可能的情况下使用吸引附件来减少临床环境污染,特别是在神经性dfu和面积较大的dfu中。这篇文章受版权保护。版权所有。
A deeper look at low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement in the clinical management of patients with diabetic foot ulcers.
The current study aimed to evaluate the dispersal of solution and microbes (aerosol) in the clinical environment during treatment with Low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement (LFCUD) with or without suction attachment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We performed 20 treatments in 10 patients divided into two groups to receive the proposed LFCUD modalities. We measured the microbial load of the environment pre-treatment (sample M1), during treatment with each LFCUD modality (sample M2) and post-treatment (sample M3). The use of LFCUD debridement without a suction attachment results in significantly higher immediate contamination of the clinic environment than the suction attachment, particularly during the procedure (1.70 ± 0.98 log 10 CFU/mL versus 0.77 ± 0.85 log 10 CFU/mL, p = 0.035). When suction is not applied, there are statistically significant differences depending on whether the DFUs are neuropathic or neuroischemic, finding a greater number of microorganisms with high loads in neuropathic DFUs. We found a statistically significant positive correlation between wound area (r = 0.450, p = 0.047) and TBI (r = 0.651, p = 0.006) with the bacterial load during the LFCUD. Based on our results, we recommend using the personal protective equipment required to protect staff members and patients during treatment with LFCUD and using a suction attachment where clinically possible to reduce clinic environmental pollution, especially in neuropathic DFUs and those with larger areas.
期刊介绍:
Wound Repair and Regeneration provides extensive international coverage of cellular and molecular biology, connective tissue, and biological mediator studies in the field of tissue repair and regeneration and serves a diverse audience of surgeons, plastic surgeons, dermatologists, biochemists, cell biologists, and others.
Wound Repair and Regeneration is the official journal of The Wound Healing Society, The European Tissue Repair Society, The Japanese Society for Wound Healing, and The Australian Wound Management Association.