Wound care
Clinical benefits and patient tolerability Debrisoft Duo is a highly adaptable debridement tool, suitable for use across a broad spectrum of wound types. It has demonstrated effectiveness in managing chronic wounds including venous leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, and pressure injuries, as well as acute wounds such as surgical incisions, traumatic wounds, and skin graft donor sites.11,16
In addition to debriding
the wound bed, it is useful for removing hyperkeratotic tissue and treating dry, thickened periwound skin. The solution also
Step 1
2 3 4
Description
Cleansing and preparing the wound prior to debridement Comprehensively debride the wound bed
Refashion the wound edges during each dressing change Apply a suitable antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial dressings based on wound assessment Table 2: Wound hygiene protocol (Murphy et al 2019)
helps disrupt biofilm, thereby supporting antimicrobial stewardship in wounds at risk of infection and chronic contamination. When applied as part of a stepwise wound care approach (Table 1), it works in synergy with other
non-invasive methods, making it an integral element of comprehensive wound management strategies. Clinical evaluations and published guidance have consistently demonstrated benefits in wound management.11,12,14
It offers a
Case Study 1: evaluating a dual sided monofilament debridement pad for a complex heel wound in a frail older patient
Patient background and clinical challenge This case study evaluates the use of the new dual sided Monofilament Debridement Pad (MDP) in the management of a complex heel wound in a 78-year-old male with a history of multiple embolic cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs). Due to limited mobility, the patient is predominantly bed or wheelchair dependant. The wound, located on the left heel, was characterised by persistent, thick, adherent fibrous slough that had not responded to previous debridement interventions. Prior conservative sharp debridement (CSD)
attempts also resulted in significant pain and hypersensitivity, necessitating an alternative approach. Debridement using the dual sided MDP was carried out weekly over a seven-week period. The intervention was assessed for effectiveness in wound debridement, patient tolerance, impact on wound progression, and overall clinician experience.
Clinical deterioration and intervention strategy Initially diagnosed as a category 4 pressure ulcer, the wound had previously nearly healed following successful treatment, and the patient was discharged from tissue viability care. However, a rapid deterioration ensued, revealing a suspected deep tissue injury that progressed quickly. Subsequent investigations confirmed osteomyelitis, requiring antibiotic therapy and renewed wound management. The healing process was further hindered by the presence of adherent slough and the patient’s complexity, which precluded further use of CSD. Despite trials with alternative debridement cloths and pads, devitalised tissue persisted. The patient, already familiar with the original
64
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com I October 2025
Prior to first use of Debrisoft Duo Following first use of Debrisoft Duo Week 3: DebrisoftDuo
Debrisoft, was introduced to the new dual sided Debrisoft Duo. Treatment began with the soft white side before transitioning to the more textured surface, ensuring both comfort and clear communication throughout the procedure. Notably, the patient exhibited greater tolerance than with previous methods and reported no pain or discomfort during the sessions. The combination of the two surfaces successfully loosened and removed fibrous slough, effectively cleansing the wound bed without distress. Patient engagement was maintained throughout, with positive feedback reported. Following the initial debridement, the wound dimensions were recorded at 1.99 cm x 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
Treatment outcomes and patient experience The recently launched dual-sided MDP demonstrated notable efficacy in loosening and removing persistent fibrous slough, consistently delivering high quality wound cleansing results. Despite initial concerns regarding patient discomfort, the intervention was exceptionally well tolerated. The MDP’s textured surface enabled effective wound bed cleansing without causing trauma or bleeding, striking an optimal balance between thoroughness and gentleness. Its ability to deliver powerful yet atraumatic debridement makes it particularly valuable for patients who are not suitable candidates for CSD. The combination of this
Week 5: Debrisoft Duo
versatile debridement method and appropriate advanced wound dressings resulted in substantial clinical progress. After seven weeks of consistent weekly debridement, the previously static wound showed clear signs of improvement and was progressing steadily toward complete closure. Although the patient was non-verbal, comfort was clearly communicated through non-verbal cues such as a thumbs up gesture and relaxed facial expressions. Notably, the patient became so at ease during treatment that he fell asleep, strongly indicating a pain free and well tolerated experience.
Clinical implications and future considerations Clinicians without training in sharp debridement noted the value of being able to perform effective wound bed preparation without requiring input from a sharps trained colleague, helping to reduce delays in care. Future exploration will focus on the potential role of Debrisoft Duo in managing epibole, a complex wound presentation involving rolled wound edges that impair epithelial migration and delay healing. Should the MDP demonstrate efficacy in addressing this challenge, it would represent a valuable breakthrough in the management of hard to heal wounds and improve outcomes for patients with complex presentations.
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 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
