How clean is clean? In-vitro comparison of biofilm removal efficacy and cleaning characteristics of three debridement pads

AimThe aim of this study was to elucidate the effectiveness of soft debridement in cleaning wounds varying in size and type of exudate and in creating/maintaining a window of opportunity for the wound to be able to heal. MethodsThis study presents a standardised in-vitro comparison of three different debridement pads based on the defined composition of exudate and standardised cleaning protocol followed by an robotic cleaning arm. Three important cleaning characteristics (fluid holding capacity, cleaning efficacy/capacity) and the biofilm removal efficacy of wounds varying in size and composition and viscosity of exudate were assessed. ResultsAll three debridement pads tested showed the ability to clean small to large wounds with different types of exudate (serous/fibrinous) as well as to remove biofilm cells to some extent. Long and dense fibres are favourable when it comes to taking up and holding onto exudate while shorter fibres help to break open harder to clean wounds. ConclusionA balance between fluid holding capacity and cleaning efficacy/capacity is important in order to achieve the best overall results and successfully remove exudate as well as biofilm cells from small to large wounds with different types of exudate. This in turn has a potential influence on the microenvironment of the wound. Key pointsO_LIThe right balance between the parameters tested in this study is crucial for a successful biofilm removal. C_LIO_LIThe type of exudate (serous, fibrinous) has an influence on the cleaning efficacy/capacity of debridement pads. C_LIO_LISoft debridement is able to remove biofilm cells and devitalized tissue as well as dead cells, exudate, proteins etc. C_LIO_LIGood cleaning efficacies without the ability to take up and hold onto exudate, protein and cells are not sufficient for the successful removal of biofilm. C_LI