Clinical efficacy of a new monoflament fibre-containing wound debridement product

Abstract

To evaluate the wound debridement efficacy (that is, achievement of 100% granulation tissue on the wound bed) of a new monofilament fibre product (Debrisoft). This multicentre, prospective, observational evaluation assessed the debridement efficacy, safety, patient comfort and user satisfaction of this new product. Time taken to perform the debridement procedure was also recorded. The new product was wetted with either saline or polihexanide and applied for 2-4 minutes, following which the usual dressing regimen was applied. Clinical outcome was scored by a trained clinician. Additionally, before and after photographs were assessed by one and the same clinician, who was blinded to the treatment given. The debridement outcomes achieved with the test product were compared with results obtained using other methods of debridement, both non-surgical and surgical, taken from an electronic database but using the same scoring systems as here. Sixty patients with chronic wounds requiring debridement were recruited, of whom 57 were included in the analysis. Debridement was effective in 93.4% (142/152) of the sessions, and the product remained intact in 95.4% (145/152). The average time for each debridement session was 2.51 minutes, markedly less than for the current debridement methods at the evaluation centres. Visible debris and slough were successfully removed with the test product. Patients reported no pain during the procedure in 45% of cases and slight discomfort for a short duration (2.0 minutes on average) in 55% of cases. The results indicate the potential for this monofilament fibre product to replace several modes of debridement, based on its efficacy, short procedure, ease of use and patient comfort. The evaluation protocol was proposed and supported by Lohmann & Rauscher GmbH, who provided the evaluation products. MS and MA are employees of Lohmann & Rauscher. The other authors declare to have no relevant financial interest in the evaluation. Apart from input to the protocol, the sponsors had no role in the conduct of the study, such as data collection, analysis, or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.