Clinical performance and safety of a debridement pad with abrasive and non-abrasive fibres

BACKGROUND

Debridement is key to removing devitalised tissue, debris and biofilm as part of wound-bed preparation. Unlike many other methods of debridement, mechanical debridement with a pad is effective enough to be used independently without an adjunctive method of debridement, while being more accessible than other standalone options.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the clinical performance and safety of a debridement pad with both abrasive and non-abrasive surfaces in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a prospective, non-controlled, non-randomised, single-arm, open-label, multicentred observational evaluation. Inclusion criteria were wounds >4 cm2 covered with at least 30% debris, necrotic tissue or slough in patients aged ≥18 years. The treatment protocol comprised a single application of the debridement pad. The primary outcome measure was the amount of necrotic tissue, slough or debris in the wound bed. Secondary outcomes included the appearance of the wound bed, edges and periwound skin; self-reported pain scores; foreseeable negative impacts; and clinician satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 62 participants with a variety of wound types were included in the analysis. Most wounds (87%) had been present for over 3 months and had high or moderate exudate levels (90%). A significant reduction was observed in all three parameters: necrotic tissue (p=0.043), slough (p<0.001) and debris (p<0.001). Necrotic tissue, slough and debris showed mean relative reductions of 40%, 72% and 40%, respectively. Of participants, 84% did not experience an increase in pain during the debridement procedure.

CONCLUSION

This clinical real-world data shows the debridement pad to be an effective and well-tolerated device for debridement and wound bed preparation.

An audit to assess the impact of prescribing a monofilament fibre debridement pad for patients with unhealed wounds after six months

A monofilament fibre debridement pad has been found to be a rapid and effective mechanical method of removing dry skin, biofilm and debris from acute and chronic wounds with minimal patient discomfort. Evidence of its impact on prescribing and wound healing, however, has been more limited. The aim of this audit was to show evidence of the monofilament fibre debridement pad's impact on wound treatment costs through an analysis of NHS wound-care prescribing data in England. A dataset for 486 uniquely identified patients who had been newly prescribed the monofilament fibre debridement pad was obtained from the NHS Business Services Authority. All data were anonymised. Costs were identified for the six months before and six months after the month of first prescription of the monofilament fibre debridement pad. The total cost of wound-care prescribing fell by 14% or £101,723 in the six months after the intervention compared with the six months before. The average monthly expenditure per patient fell from £244 before the intervention to £209 (n=486) after. These results indicate that use of the monofilament fibre debridement pad could reduce prescribing costs and the use of antimicrobial and negative pressure therapies. Further research is warranted to investigate the clinical role of the monofilament fibre debridement pad in wound healing.