4.8 Article

Scanning electron microscopic examination of bacterial immobilisation in a carboxymethyl cellulose (AQUACEL®) and alginate dressings

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 883-890

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00414-3

关键词

scanning electron microscopy; bacterial immobilisation; wound dressings; carboxymethyl cellulose (AQUACEL((R)) Hydrofibcr (R) dressing); alginates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dressings have been applied to open Wounds for centuries. Traditionally they have been absorbent, permeable materials, i.e. gauze that could adhere to desiccated wound surfaces, inducing trauma on removal. With the advent of modern wound care products many dressings are now capable of absorbing large volumes of exudate whilst still continuing to provide a moist wound healing environment. Equally important is their ability to lock exudate in the dressing (i.e. bacterial retention within the dressing matrix) such that upon removal from a wound surface bacterial dispersion is minimised. In these studies detailed scanning electron microscopy techniques have demonstrated the fluid controlling properties of alginate wound dressings and a carboxymethylated cellulose wound dressing AQUACEL(R) Hydrofiber(R) dressing (CMCH)). It was demonstrated that following hydration of the latter wound dressing, the subsequent formation of a cohesive gel was effective in encapsulating large populations of potentially pathogenic bacteria such as Psuedomonas, aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus under the gelled surface, as well as being immobilised within the swollen fibres. In contrast, hydrated alginate wound dressings did not form a uniform, cohesive gel structure, with the result that fewer bacteria were immobilised within the gel matrix. Many bacteria were trapped on individual, non-hydrated fibres. The unique absorbent gelling properties of the CMCH dressing appears to provide ail ideal environment for immobilising bacteria. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据