• Tobias Hirsch, Simin Limoochi-Deli, Armin Lahmer, Frank Jacobsen, Ole Goertz, Hans-Ulrich Steinau, Hans-Martin Seipp, and Lars Steinstraesser.
• Department of Plastic Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum and Giessen, Germany.
• Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011 Apr 1; 127 (4): 1539-45.

BackgroundA primary strategy for preventing and treating wound infection in chronic wounds is the use of topical antiseptics and wound irrigating agents. However, their interaction with commonly used wound dressings has not yet been investigated. In this study, the authors analyzed the antimicrobial activity of antiseptics and wound irrigating agents used with commercially available wound dressings.MethodsFive clinically used antiseptics and wound irrigating agents (Prontosan, Lavasept, Braunol, Octenisept, and Betaisodona) were tested in the presence or absence of 42 wound dressings against Staphylococcus aureus. The determination of antibacterial activity was performed by disk diffusion assay.ResultsPovidone-iodine-based products showed sufficient antimicrobial activity in 64 to 78 percent of the combinations assessed (p > 0.01). The octenidine derivate Octenisept showed sufficient antimicrobial activity in 54 percent of combinations. Polyhexamethylene biguanide derivatives demonstrated sufficient antimicrobial activity in 32 percent of the combinations.ConclusionThis study revealed that commonly used wound dressings dramatically reduce antibacterial activity of clinically used antiseptics and wound irrigating agents in vitro.

19 keywords...

hide…