Wound care


rapid and effective method for removing slough, debris, and biofilm without requiring advanced sharp debridement skills. This contributes not only to its clinical effectiveness but also to improved efficiency, with debridement typically completed in just 2-4 minutes. It has been suggested that this speed and effectiveness may reduce the need for multiple debridement sessions, helping streamline care delivery.11,12 Patient tolerability is another key strength. In a study involving 60 patients, 45% reported no pain, 50.4% experienced only mild discomfort (average duration of 2 minutes), and just 4.6% described brief moderate pain, lasting around


2.4 minutes on average.14 These results indicate


that Debrisoft is generally well tolerated, which can enhance patient adherence to effective wound care. Thoroughly cleaning the wound bed also improves tissue visibility, facilitating more accurate clinical assessment and informed treatment decisions.


Conclusion The case studies, mentioned in this article, underscore the important role that Debrisoft Duo can play in the management of chronic wounds, particularly those with high bioburden and delayed healing. Its ability to effectively


prepare the wound bed and disrupt biofilm supports effective and evidenced-based wound care practice. The device has shown clear benefits in improving tissue quality, which supports more efficient and sustained healing outcomes. This also demonstrates how regular debridement of the wound bed, margins, and surrounding skin is critical in promoting healing and preventing complications.3


Notably, the


solution empowers clinicians, regardless of their level of debridement experience to carry out effective wound cleansing, thereby increasing access to evidence-based interventions across a wider range of care settings.


CSJ


Case Study 2: The role of dual-sided monofilament debridement in the management of a complex diabetic foot ulcer


Pre debridement


Textured side post debridement


Post debridement


Patient background and initial presentation This case study highlights a patient with a complex medical history including Type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ischaemic heart disease, for which he previously underwent coronary stenting. Although known to the podiatry team as part of his diabetes management, this gentleman had no prior history of foot ulceration. On initial presentation, the patient attended


the Emergency Department with an oedematous right foot and a wound located to the distal lateral aspect. The wound, characterised by an area of necrotic tissue, was also producing purulent exudate. He was admitted for intravenous antibiotic therapy and some 3 weeks later, underwent surgical amputation of the fifth metatarsal. A subsequent return to theatre was required for revascularisation and surgical debridement.


Surgical interventions and early wound management Following hospital discharge shortly after, the wound was managed with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) under the care of the community nursing team until he was able to attend the outpatient Podiatry clinic. However, the patient experienced poor tolerance to NPWT, resulting in its discontinuation. After two weeks, the patient was able to attend the outpatient


Pre debridement


White side post debridement


podiatry clinic for a comprehensive reassessment of the wound to guide further treatment and ongoing management. On initial presentation to the podiatry team, the wound was observed to be heavily sloughy, malodorous, and covered with a visible slime suggestive of biofilm and fibrin accumulation (see image 1). Wound margins were macerated due to excess exudate, presenting as softened and fragile, signs that increase the risk of further tissue breakdown.17


The wound appeared stalled in the


inflammatory phase of healing, as evidenced by persistent slough, malodour, increased exudate levels, and an absence of healthy granulation tissue, all indicating prolonged inflammation and delayed progression toward the proliferative phase.17


Wound assessment and introduction of mechanical debridement Wound cleansing was carried out using a surfactant, followed by MD using Debrisoft Duo. Where necessary, residual adherent slough was removed via conservative sharp debridement, revealing healthy, well-perfused granulation tissue beneath the devitalised layer. A silver gelling fibre dressing was applied post-debridement to target the potential presence of biofilm. This wound management protocol was repeated


on a weekly basis to ensure effective and efficient debridement. In the weeks that followed, significant


Textured side post debridement


Post debridement


clinical improvement was observed, particularly in the condition of the wound margins (image 4). The wound began to close by secondary intention, with healthy granulation tissue progressively filling the cavity, at which point we expect epithelialisation to occur.


Clinical outcomes and implications for practice Debrisoft Duo proved to be an efficient and user-friendly tool for wound bed preparation. The textured side of the pad was especially effective in disrupting adherent slough, biofilm, and devitalised tissue at the wound edges. In cases where slough remained, its use facilitated easier sharp debridement by loosening tissue bonds. Clinicians found the method fast, intuitive, and easy to integrate into routine care. Importantly, the patient reported only minimal discomfort during the initial application, with no pain experienced during subsequent debridement sessions. The ability to efficiently remove biofilm and


devitalised tissue without causing trauma or distress supports consistent, high quality wound bed preparation, an essential component in promoting healing and reducing the risk of complications.3


In this case, the regular use of


Debrisoft Duo contributed to wound progression out of the inflammatory phase, supported granulation, and facilitated a steady trajectory towards closure.


October 2025 I www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 65


t


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