Technology and product reviews Page points
1. Growth of bothS. aureus andP. aeruginosa in the seeded-agar beneath all of the foam dressings was observed after 48 hours contact
2. S. aureus growth was also observed on the WSCL of foams A and C
3. The results indicated that visualisation of bacterial growth was independent of the challenge organism, but may be
dependent on a dressing’s ability to make the antimicrobial agent available at the dressing/seeded-agar interface
Figure 11. Observed effect of foam B dressing on a S. aureus (A) and P. aeruginosa (C) simulated colonised wound surface after a 48-hour contact period. Bacterial growth was visually observed beneath the position where the dressing had been applied (A and C). S. aureus growth was observable on the removed dressing after the 48-hour contact period (B), but no visible growth was observed with P. aeruginosa (D).
Figure 12. Observed effect of foam C dressing on a S. aureus (A) and P. aeruginosa (C) simulated colonised wound surface after a 48-hour contact period. Bacterial growth was visually observed beneath the position where the dressing had been applied. S. aureus growth was observable on the removed dressing after the 48-hour contact period (B), but no visible growth was observed with P. aeruginosa (D).
observed from both organisms for stab cultures taken from AL-Ag plates (indicating only bacteriostatic activity). Both the HF-Ag and AL-Ag dressings prevented bacterial proliferation when presented with either face and cut edge, thereby showing no orientation effects [Figure 15]. Growth of both S. aureus and P. aeruginosa
in the seeded-agar beneath all of the foam dressings was observed after 48 hours contact [Figures 9, 10 and 11a and 11c]. S. aureus growth was also observed on the
45 Wounds International Vol 2 | Issue 4 | ©Wounds International 2011
WSCL of foams A and C [Figures 10b and 11b] The appearance of the seeded-agar was unchanged following a further period of 24 hours’ incubation. Stab cultures were positive for both microorganisms for all three foam dressings. Distinctive patterns of bacterial growth were observed beneath foams B and C [Figures 11 and 12], consistent with the size and spacing of the pores in the adhesive layer. When dressing orientation was tested,
similar results were observed for the three foam dressings. Figure 13 demonstrates how
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53