When plasma jet is effective for chronic wound bacteria inactivation, is it also effective for wound healing?

Abstract

PurposeThis investigation aimed to compare the effectiveness of two styles of plasma jet treatment (i.e., contact and non-contact styles) for two biological materials, namely, wound related bacteria and acute wounds. MethodAn atmospheric plasma jet operated at a frequency of 18.32 kHz and high AC voltage with a peak-to-peak voltage of 9.58 kV and a current of 55.2 mA was applied. Argon gas was used as the carries gas of plasma jet generation and was fixed at a flow rate of 1 standard liters per minute (slm).Two biological materials (i.e., wound related bacteria and acute wound) were applied as experimental objects. The sample groups were based on the two styles of plasma jet treatment: contact and non-contact styles. Microbial inhibition zone calculation and macroscopic and histological observations were also performed. ResultsThis investigation emphasized that the contact and non-contact styles of plasma jet treatment had significantly different effects for wounds and wound-related chronic bacteria. On the one hand, the contact style was visually attractive and more effective for inactivate bacteria. On the other hand, it caused negative effects, such as damaging normal tissue, significantly impeding wound healing and impeding the growing of new epithelial tissue. The non-contact style, however, was less effective at inactivating bacteria; however, it could accelerate wound healing. ConclusionIn the context of wound healing, the non-contact style of plasma jet treatment may be better than the contact style of plasma jet treatment.