Chronic wounds commonly have high levels of bioburden and antibiotic-resistant pathogens. This review article focuses on findings from current literature related to four biophysical technologies (ultrasound, electrical stimulation, phototherapy, and negative pressure wound therapy) believed to be beneficial for managing wound bioburden and support healing.
Recent Advances and Critical Issues:
Recent advances for each modality are provided as a basic synopsis of the technology followed by brief overviews of the most recent literature addressing its effectiveness for managing wound bioburden, and critical issues for each modality are provided as conclusions.
Future Directions:
This review highlights the need for further clinically relevant studies examining bacterial levels in addition to healing progression for each technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EnsingGT, NeutD, van HornJR, van der MeiHC, and BusscherHJ: The combination of ultrasound with antibiotics released from bone cement decreases the viability of planktonic and biofilm bacteria: an in vitro study with clinical strains. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2006; 58: 1287.
2.
QianZ, SagersRD, and PittWG: The effect of ultrasound frequency upon enhanced killing of Pseudomonas aeuroginosa biofilm. Ann Biomed Eng, 1997; 25: 69.
3.
KlothL and NiezgodaJ: Ultrasound for wound debridement and healing. In: Wound Healing Evidence Based Management, 4th edition, edited by McCullochJ and KlothL. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis, 2010, pp. 545–575.
4.
WollinaU, HeinigB, and KlothK: The use of biophysical technologies in chronic wound management. In: Measurements in Wound Healing, edited by ManiR, RomanelliM, and ShuklaV. London: Springer-Verlag, 2012, pp. 313–354.
5.
KavrosSJ and SchenkEC: Use of noncontact low frequency ultrasound in the treatment of chronic foot and leg ulcerations: a 51-patient analysis. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 2007; 97: 95.
6.
Conner-KerrT, AlstonG, StovallA, VernonT, WinterD, MeixnerJ, GrantK, and KuteT: The effects of low frequency ultrasound (35 kHz) on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in vitro. Ostomy Wound Manage, 2010; 56: 32.
7.
SerenaT, LeeK, LamK, AttarP, MenesesP, and EnnisW: The impact of noncontact, nonthermal, low frequency ultrasound on bacterial counts in experimental and chronic wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage, 2009; 55: 22.
8.
EscandonJ, VivasA, PerezR, KirsnerR, and DavisS: A prospective pilot study of ultrasound therapy effectiveness in refractory venous ulcers. Int Wound J, 2012; 9: 570.
9.
EnnisWJ, ForemannP, MozenN, MasseyJ, Conner-KerrT, and MenesesP: Ultrasound therapy for recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcers: results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter study. Ostomy Wound Manage, 2005; 51: 24.
10.
EnnisWJ, ValdesW, GainerM, and MenesesP: Evaluation of clinical effectiveness of MIST ultrasound therapy for the healing of chronic wounds. Adv Skin Wound Care, 2006; 19: 437.
11.
Meeting Report/Plenary Session Wounds UK, 2010, CuttingK, UngerP, NorrisR, and DriverV: MIST ultrasound therapy: the science and the benefits. Wounds UK, 2011; 7: 130.
12.
BergstromN, AllmanRM, AlvarezOM, BennettMA, CarlsonCE, FrantzRA, GarberSL, JacksonBS, KaminskiMVJr, KempMG, KrouskopTA, LewisVLJr, MaklebustJ, MargolisDJ, MarvelEM, RegerSI, RodeheaverGT, SalcidoR, XakellisGC, and YarkonyGM: Treatment of Pressure Ulcers. Clinical Practice Guideline, No. 15. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0652.
13.
National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and European Pressure Ulcer Advisor Panel. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Washington DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, 2009.
14.
MerrimanHL, HegyiCA, Albright-OvertonCR, CarlosJJr, PutnamRW, and MulcareJA: A comparison of four electrical stimulation types on Staphylococcus aureus growth in vitro. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2004; 41: 139.
15.
DaeschleinG, AssadianO, KlothLC, MeinlC, NeyF, and KramerA: Antibacterial activity of positive and negative polarity low voltage pulsed current (LVPC) on six typical Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial pathogens of chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen, 2007; 15: 399.
16.
KlothL and ZhaoM: Endogenous and exogenous electrical fields for wound healing. In: Wound Healing Evidence Based Management, 4th edition, edited by McCullochJ and KlothL. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis, 2010, pp. 450–513.
17.
Conner-KerrT: Light therapies. In: Wound Healing Evidence Based Management, 4th edition, edited by McCullochJ and KlothL. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis, 2010, pp. 576–593.
18.
RaoBK, KumarP, RaoS, and GurungB: Bactericidal effect of ultraviolet C (UVC), direct and filtered through transparent plastic, on Gram-positive cocci: an in vitro study. Ostomy Wound Manage, 2011; 57: 46.
19.
ThaiTP, HoughtonPE, CampbellKE, and WoodburyMG: Ultraviolet C in the treatment of chronic wounds with MRSA: a case study. Ostomy Wound Manage, 2002; 48: 52.
20.
BaffoniM, BessaLJ, GrandeR, Di GiulioM, MongelliM, CiarelliA, and CelliniL: Laser irradiation effect on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms isolated from venous leg ulcer. Int Wound J, 2012; 9: 517.
21.
WollinaU and GeinigB: Novel therapies developed for the treatment of leg ulcers: focus on physical therapies. Expert Rev Dermatol, 2012; 7: 419.
22.
MouësCM, VosMC, van den BemdGJCM, StijnenT, and HoviusSE: Bacterial load in relation to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomized trial. Wound Repair Regen, 2004; 12: 11.
23.
WeedT, RatliffC and DrakeDB: Quantifying bacterial bioburden during negative pressure wound therapy; does the wound VAC enhance bacterial clearance?. Ann Plast Surg, 2004; 52: 276.
