[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.41.181. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 1990

Occlusive DressingsDoes Dressing Type Influence the Growth of Common Bacterial Pathogens?

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami (Fla) School of Medicine.

Arch Surg. 1990;125(9):1136-1139. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1990.01410210062009
Abstract

• We studied the effect of different occlusive dressings and of air exposure on the growth of four pathogenic bacteria in wounds. Partial-thickness wounds on domestic pigs were inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium perfringens, Bacteroides fragilis, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Each wound was covered with three dressings (DuoDerm, Opsite, or Vigilon), or left exposed to air. Groups of wounds were sampled at 24, 48, and 72 hours. Staphylococcus aureus reached high levels beneath all of the dressings and in the air-exposed wounds. The numbers of C perfringens and B fragilis were greatly reduced in the airexposed wounds and slightly reduced in the Opsite-covered wounds. The numbers of P aeruginosa were greatest in the Opsite- and Vigilon-covered wounds. The results indicate that occlusive dressings are not indicated in wounds that clinically appear to be grossly contaminated or that may contain anaerobic organisms.

(Arch Surg. 1990;125:1136-1139)

References
1.
Winter GD.  Formation of scab and the rate of epithelialization on superficial wounds in the skin of domestic pig . Nature . 1964;193:293-294.Article
2.
Alvarez OM, Mertz PM, Eaglstein WH.  The effects of occlusive dressings on collagen synthesis and re-epithelialization in superficial wounds . J Surg Res. 1981;35:142-148.Article
3.
Barnett A, Bekowitz RL, Mills R, Vistines LM.  Comparison of synthetic adhesive moisture vapor permeable and fine mesh gauze dressings for splitthickness skin graft donor sites . Am J Surg . 1983;145:379-381.Article
4.
Linskey CB, Rovee DT, Dow T.  Effect of dressing on wound inflammation and scar tissue . In: Dineen P, Hildick-Smith G, eds. The Surgical Wound . Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger; 1981:191-206.
5.
May SR.  Physiology, immunology, and clinical efficacy of an adherent polyurethane wound dressing: Opsite . In: Wise DL, ed. Burn Wound Coverings . Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press Inc; 1984;2:73-74.
6.
Alper JC, Welch EA, Ginsberg M, Bogaars H, Maguire P.  Moist wound healing under a vapor permeable membrane . J Am Acad Dermatol . 1983;8:347-353.Article
7.
Mertz PM, Eaglstein WH.  The effect of a semiocclusive dressing on the microbial population in superficial wounds . Arch Surg . 1984;119:287-289.Article
8.
Katz S, McGinley K, Leyden JJ.  Semipermeable occlusive dressings: effects on growth of pathogenic bacteria and reepithelialization of superficial wounds . Arch Dermatol . 1986;122:58-62.Article
9.
Hendrickson DA.  Reagents and stains . In: Lennette EH, ed. Manual of Clinical Microbiology . 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1985:1095.
10.
Gilchrist JE, Campbell JE, Donnelly CB, Peeler JT, Delaney JM.  Spiral plate method for bacterial determination . Appl Environ Microbiol . 1973;23:244-252.
11.
Rissing PJ, Crowder JG, Dunfee T, White A.  Bacteroides bacteremia from decubitus ulcers . South Med J . 1974;67:1179-1182.Article
12.
Ademiluyi SA, Rotime VO, Coker AO, Banjo TO, Akinyanju O.  The anaerobic and aerobic bacterial flora of leg ulcers in patients with sickle-cell disease . J Infect . 1988;17:115-120.Article
×